OS/2 Shareware BBS: 15 Message/15-Message.zip/UU991023.zip/Ua991022.txt

Text File | 1999-10-23 | 1MB | 39,816 lines

                   comp.os.os2.advocacy             (Usenet)

                 Saturday, 16-Oct-1999 to Friday, 22-Oct-1999

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            15-Oct-99 22:18:19
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 04:21:28
Subj: Re: IBM Warp Client 5 is under development

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 12:27:06, "David T. Johnson"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> stan wrote:
> >
> > Rick Lindsay <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:[e-mail]...
> > > From within IBM Austin comes word that there is really a development
team
> > working
> > > on a new client....
>
> Ssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhh!  Brad Wardell has assured us that IBM has
> indicated to him with a clear message that there will be no new client.
>
I've been sitting on this for a while, not knowing exactly what to do
with it, but here goes:

Apparently, way back in 1995, when serious coding started on Warp 4 at
IBM, there were already so-called "outline projects" for Warp 5 and 6,
designed to be server/inter-intranet centric NOS's with only token
"hooks" for optionally including "thin" OS/2 clients.... but catering
mainly for non-IBM developed clients in interim until IBM's next
generation of truly portable macro kernels evolved sufficiently to
displace or offer a viable alternative to a MS desktop client.
(apparently IBM was way ahead of MS in cristal ball-gazing <G>).

The person who confided this to me (anonymously, because - as usual -
bound by ongoing NDA's) wonders what would have become of these
outlines. It is interesting however, that both Warp 3 and 4 started
life in exactly the same fashion. So, all things equal, there is a
really fat chance that there will ultimately be a (sort of) Warp 5.
And even 6.

The real question is: would we recognise a Warp 5 if it hit us on the
head? It looks like IBM knows (or thinks it knows) a lot more of the
future of (personal) computing than many of us would like to give it
credit for and truly believes the days of the PC are numbered. I don't
like it (the PC is/was every anachist's dream come true) but there ya
go...

The irony of it is that if all this is true, IBM, by orphaning off the
fat client Warp, will have ultimately beaten MS when the networked era
finally comes.

So it won't be a complete loss for me after all...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

|---------------------------------------------------|
|            <undefined O/S> boot options           |
|                                                   |
|               Please choose from list             |
|                                                   |
|       <crash>         <OS/2>        <linux>       |
|---------------------------------------------------|

NT-vocates made trouble, so here's the first P. C. sig-line.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            15-Oct-99 22:18:19
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 04:21:28
Subj: Re: Revenge of the OS/2 User and Linux

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 19:28:25, Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>
wrote:

> On comp.os.os2.advocacy, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net posted :
>
> > Karel Jansens
> > jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
> >
> > |---------------------------------------------------|
> > |            <undefined O/S> boot options           |
> > |            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                        |
> > |               Please choose from list             |
> > |                                                   |
> > |       <crash>         <OS/2>        <linux>       |
> > |---------------------------------------------------|
>
> The sig is still just as idiotic. Why bother to alter it?

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

|---------------------------------------------------|
|                    boot options                   |
|                                                   |
|               Please choose from list             |
|                                                   |
|       <OS/2>        <linux>       <N--!@@%189&&9(:;
*(%$()/>,>?------______986*()7

Sheesh! There's no pleasing some people...

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            16-Oct-99 09:32:13
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 04:21:28
Subj: Re: IBM Warp Client 5 is under development

From: Les Bell <[e-mail]>

Karel Jansens wrote:

> Apparently, way back in 1995, when serious coding started on Warp 4 at
> IBM, there were already so-called "outline projects" for Warp 5 and 6,
> designed to be server/inter-intranet centric NOS's with only token
> "hooks" for optionally including "thin" OS/2 clients.... but catering
> mainly for non-IBM developed clients in interim until IBM's next
> generation of truly portable macro kernels evolved sufficiently to
> displace or offer a viable alternative to a MS desktop client.
> (apparently IBM was way ahead of MS in cristal ball-gazing <G>).
>
> The person who confided this to me (anonymously, because - as usual -
> bound by ongoing NDA's) wonders what would have become of these
> outlines. It is interesting however, that both Warp 3 and 4 started
> life in exactly the same fashion. So, all things equal, there is a
> really fat chance that there will ultimately be a (sort of) Warp 5.
> And even 6.

In the good old days, after IBM was a hardware company, but before it
became a services company, it developed operating system software for a
variety of platforms. Because of the size of the company, it was felt
that internal competition would be a good thing, and so it was not
uncommon for there to be several competitive OS development projects
going on simultaneously. For example, at one time, back in the late
seventies or early eighties, there were three OS's codenamed Nina, Pinta
and Santa Maria under development. Only one would eventually see the
light of day (don't ask me which one - I don't know), and it was said
that there was no stigma attached to being involved in a failed project
(yeah, right!).

There was also a project called "Project X" which was to produce a
single operating system, something like VM/CMS, that would run on
everything from PC's to mainframes. That never got off the ground, but
it did spawn several offshoots, amongst them SAA, and a thing called the
PC/370, which had an additional CPU card containing a 68000, a modified
microcode 68000 and a modified microcode 8087, all intended to provide
the 370 instruction set.

[I honestly can't remember where I got this information; it probably
came up in conversation with somebody at IBM, but I'm pretty sure my
recollection is accurate.]

So, yes, IBM did "blue-sky" a lot, back then. But times have changed;
and IBM has clearly decided that the best prospect for avoiding a
Microsoft-dominated world is to support Linux. After all, there's going
to be lots of consulting revenue there . . .

Best,

--- Les [http://www.lesbell.com.au]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Les Bell and Associates Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               15-Oct-99 18:29:16
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 04:21:28
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] changed his monicker for no apparent
reason.

As a courtesy to those that do not wish to see your self-absorbed
drivel, could you please keep your antispammed ID consistent so it can
be easily filtered?  Thanks in advance.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          15-Oct-99 18:52:23
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 04:21:28
Subj: Re: Revenge of the OS/2 User and Linux

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.os2.advocacy, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net posted :

> On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 19:28:25, Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On comp.os.os2.advocacy, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net posted :
> >
> > > Karel Jansens
> > > jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
> > >
> > > |---------------------------------------------------|
> > > |            <undefined O/S> boot options           |
> > > |            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                        |
> > > |               Please choose from list             |
> > > |                                                   |
> > > |       <crash>         <OS/2>        <linux>       |
> > > |---------------------------------------------------|
> >
> > The sig is still just as idiotic. Why bother to alter it?
>
> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
>
> |---------------------------------------------------|
> |                    boot options                   |
> |                                                   |
> |               Please choose from list             |
> |                                                   |
> |       <OS/2>        <linux>       <N--!@@%189&&9(:;
> *(%$()/>,>?------______986*()7
>
> Sheesh! There's no pleasing some people...

ROTFL!
--
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
         <remove _nospam_>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          15-Oct-99 18:58:23
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 04:21:28
Subj: Re: IBM re-evaluating consumer PC business

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.os2.advocacy, Bennie Nelson posted :

> Hobbyist wrote:
> >
> > On comp.os.os2.advocacy, Bennie Nelson posted :
> >
> > > OS/2 driver support is better now than when Win 95 was released.  As I
> > > recall, there was a huge list of thousands of devices not being
supported
> > > in Win 95 during the beta.  OS/2's support for devices is far better now
> > > than NT 4.0 when it was released.
> >
> > What kind of pathetic advocacy is this?
> >
> > How long has OS/2 Warp 3 and 4 have been released and you have to be
> > comparing driver availability to the 32bit windows offerings when they
> > were just released?
>
> The point I'm making here is the opposite: if Win 95 and NT were not
considered
> dead when they were released and their device support was not as good as
OS/2's
> is now, why is device support considered a negative for OS/2, now?

Because OS/2 is a more than established OS which has already seen it's
little hay day and is dwindling into oblivion at present. After this
long, full and now dwindling life it's really pathetic to compare it's
present driver support to the windows offerings when they had just
entered the market place.

> How long had Windows been around in various flavors prior to the
> release of Win 95?  And, NT 4 was so bad that MS had to release NT
> Compatability Tool v1.  Warp's support for devices is very good.  That
> is a turnaround from the OS/2 1.x and 2.0 days when OS/2 was
> considered the os for PS/2s (or, in other words, hardware from IBM).

Well OS/2 has remained available since all this change in Win9x and NT
driver support and yet OS/2's support is still being compared to the
win9x/NT support of 5 yrs back.

By the way, OS/2 deserves better than that. It does have better hardware
support than you're making it out to appear.


--
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
         <remove _nospam_>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          16-Oct-99 07:23:03
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 05:17:17
Subj: (1/2) Re: IBM re-evaluating consumer PC business

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>>>>>>>Bennie Nelson
>>>>>>>the Win32 specifications have at
>>>>>>>least one major dichotomy:  if a Win 32 executable requires a VxD
>>>>>>>driver, then it will not execute on NT.

>> >>>> Huh?? What Win32 executables require a VxD driver? You don't link
>> >>>> Win32 apps with drivers. you know. It's not like a DLL.

>> >> >> Oh christ, I'm talking programming issues with a typical OS/2
enduser.
>> >> >> It's hopeless, I know. They *never* learn any of this stuff. They
just
>> >> >> spout half-baked nonsense based upon other uninformed hearsay.

>> >> >Win32 software written for hardware that is supported by VxD drivers
>> >> >will not work in NT.

>> >> It is not part of the "Win32 specifications" to produce "software
>> >> [specifically] written for hardware [drivers]". (Not that I believe
>> >> that you even have the slightest idea what you're talking about. I'm
>> >> sure that you're simply tossing around some buzz phrases that you once
>> >> heard some other OS/2 nutcase rambling about Windows, and thought that
>> >> it made for lovely sounding FUD). Indeed, it is part of the "Win32
>> >> specifications" to produce software that is hardware independent. The
>> >> reason why there are things called "drivers" is to make that so.
>> >> Obviously, this most basic programming concept has gone completely
>> >> over your head.

>> >Are you saying that you are unaware of the restrictions placed upon
>> >developers by MS?

>If I had written the answer below and Jeff had written the question above,
>Jeff would have come back with "note, no answer."

That's because your question isn't even remotely related to the
discussion. That is what I pointed out, and yet another thing which
obviously went over your head. MS places no alleged restrictions upon
Win32 programmers to write Win32 software that only works with certain
drivers, despite your fumbling FUD otherwise.

>> Oh this is precious. A technically-illiterate OS/2 *enduser*
>> attempting to lecture programmers upon what MS does and doesn't
>> provide to developers.

>You've done quite a job of filling in a personal description of me with
>so little information. Quite a work of fiction you have going there, too.
>You'll criticize me as "illiterate" and you are willing to denigrate my
>character and abilities when you are quite ignorant of what I am like and
>what my abilities are.

I do not need any more information than what you've already supplied
to dismiss your allegations about Win32 programming issues to be
erroneous and uninformed. You aired your FUD here, and I addressed it.
That's what has happened. If you don't want people to point out how
little you know, then stop demonstrating your ignorance by making
uninformed, erroneous statements.

>> >VxDs, which are supported by Win 9x, are not
>> >supported in NT, period.
>>
>> And this has exactly what to do with your statements such as "if a Win
>> 32 executable requires a VxD driver, then it will not execute on NT."
>> or "Win32 software written for hardware that is supported by VxD
>> drivers will not work on NT"??

>Some Win32 software is written for hardware that is accessed via a VxD
>type device driver.

What software? Name specific titles. I have yet to see any such title
(unless it's some esoteric, vertical market app that ships with its
own hardware and device driver, for whatever reason. This is NOT even
remotely a typical Win32 application. These are Win32 programs that
inflict their own limitations upon themselves, not due to any alleged
Win32 design "dichotomy").

>Some hardware manufacturers bundle their own applications
>with the hardware. Example: sound card with midi and audio applications.

Oh brother. The more you talk about this stuff, the more it becomes
obvious that you don't know what you're talking about,

Often, the bundled programs shipping with specific hardware are
designed not to work with other hardware and software not due to any
alleged limitation of Win32, nor any supposed "dichotomy", despite
your woefully uninformed and misguided FUD, but rather because the
manufacturer doesn't want anyone to use the bundled software with some
other company's hardware. So the code specifically doesn't run with
other hardware/drivers.

Here's how it works. When Creative Labs developed Vienna, their DLS
app for CL cards that support sample uploading, they made sure that
the programmers added some checks to verify that the guy actually has
a CL card and isn't trying to use CL bundled software with some other
brand of sound card.

It's the same reason why OS/2 Sound Blaster drivers made by CL don't
work with "SB compatible" cards.

You'd know this *if* you knew what you were talking about. The fact
that you apparently believe that it is the operating system itself
which has restricted this software from working with other hardware
and drivers underscores your ignorance of these matters. The fact that
you actually think such an example supports your allegation that "the
Win32 specifications have at least one major dichotomy", "Win32
software written for hardware that is supported by VxD drivers will
not work on NT", etc, is testiment to how little you understand the
topic upon which you're spreading FUD. (Incidentally, it's not really
the VxD that is even restricting this bundled software from working
with other hardware. But then, you don't know about these things).

Those same people have made such things for OS/2. Does that constitute
proof that there is a dichotomy in the design of OS/2 itself because
you can get an OS/2 application that won't work with every driver out
there.

In fact, there are some OS/2 apps that are made for RTMIDI and don't
work with MMPM, and vice versa. Is IBM "restricting" OS/2 programmers
as a result? Apparently so, according to your FUD.

>> Win32 executables are *not* VxDs. (Do you even know what a VxD is? For
>> laughs, we should hear you explain to us what it is, and what it does.
>> I'm sure that would be a riot!) And Win32 executables are hardware
>> independent (unless you're talking about some specialized vertical app
>> that is specifically written to work with only one, particular driver,
>> for whatever reason. But that isn't even close to being a typical
>> Win32 app. Indeed, that's the sort of app that not only DOESN'T MS
>> "restrict" developers to writing, as you apparently misbelieve, but
>> actually recommends strongly against).

>> Nevertheless, like so many other typical OS/2 Zealots, your FUD is as
>> behind the times as the aging niche product you seek to promote.
>> You've apparently never even heard of the Windows Driver Model.
>> Typical.

>Why did Microsoft create that?

It's part of Windows NT. You'd know that *if* you knew anything about
this subject... and clearly you don't.

You don't even know whether you're talking about Win32 executables, or
drivers, or hardware issues, or what -- you're so completely confused
in your FUD.

>And why did MS pledge to merge Win 9x
>and NT into one common platform?

MS never pledged that. MS only said that Win NT would eventually
supercede Win9x, just like Win9X and WinNT have long since superceded
OS/2 in both MS' product line as well as the marketplace.

>Precisely because of the incompatibilities
>between Win 9x and NT.  And why is MS having such a tough time achieving
>the common code base for Windows?

MS isn't. Whereas MS is still developing Win9x and WinNT, IBM has
pretty much given up developing OS/2, even after abandoning the OS/2
API in favor of JAVA. Apparently, it is IBM who is having trouble
achieving a code base.

>Because the consumers would have to
>ditch a lot of investments in software that currently runs on Win 9x that
>wouldn't be supported.  And much of that software would be Win32 software.

FUD. My Win32 software runs fine upon both Win9x and WinNT. It's my
OS/2 software that I had to throw out because it wouldn't run on an OS
that I wanted to use.

>> The only real "dichotomy" here is between reality and your idea of
>> what reality is.

>The real dichotomy is between Win 9x and NT.

I'm sure you've deluded yourself into thinking so, but as one can see
from your posts, it certainly isn't based upon any sound knowledge of
technical issues, nor even anything remotely resembling what is
actually happening in the software industry.

>> >> As a person who has written both Win32 application software as well as
>> >> drivers, I could explain to you how this all works, but I have
>> >> absolutely no confidence that you'd be able to understand much of it,
>> >> and worse, I strongly believe that your somewhat-unnatural "love" for
>> >> OS/2 will blind you into believing nothing but the worst possible,
>> >> least realistic FUD about Windows, some of which you're spewing right
>> >> now.

>While not necessary, I will insert a little personal history.  In 1988, I
>taught myself how to program in x86 assembler.

Been there, done that -- both for 680x0 and 80x86.

But frankly, I seriously doubt the veracity of your alleged
qualifications. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that you've written
so much as a "Hello World" program, and the lack of knowledge you've
exhibited here upon matters concerning drivers is appalling.

>The reason?  I wanted to
>write a real time MIDI program and needed an MPU401 device driver. The MIDI
>program and device driver were written in assembler for performance reasons.
>The program generated harmony in real time based upon the notes played on a
>MIDI capable instrument. This was no simple program, either.

In that case, since you allegedly wrote an "MPU401 driver" (and unlike
your bogus claim of such, *my* MPU401 device driver is out there in
public distribution and its existence/performance can be verified),
you should be able to easily tell me: What are the modes that the
MPU401 supports, and what does each entail?

>I would welcome the opportunity to have a decent technical exchange with
>you. You have consistently shown your inability to do so.

That's ironic being that you have exhibited numerous inaccuracies in
your allegations about supposed Win32 software dependence upon
specific device drivers, and I have detailed exactly why you're wrong,
citing specific examples (such as Vienna) to rebut your groundless
accusations. You have then followed this up with nothing except yet
more of your nebulous and inaccurate misassumptions about these
topics, devoid of *any* evidence to back up your specious claims.

Obviously, you're not interested in doing anything except spreading
FUD about Win32.

>Instead you've
>repeatedly revealed the weakness of your positions by resorting to personal
>attacks and insults. If your technical positions were worth anything, you
>wouldn't have to try to disguise them with such drivel.

Again, ironic being that I have addressed your misguided tripe
concerning Win32, only to hear you spout yet more drivel, devoid of
*any* evidence to backup your bogus claims.

>> >You have yet to disprove anything I have said.  Submit a URL that
>> >shows how one goes about installing in NT any Win32 software requiring
>> >one or more VxDs.
>>
>> Again. You don't know what you're talking about. Win32 software
>> doesn't require "one or more VxDs". Win32 software is platform
>> independent. Go to my web site and you can download plenty of programs
>> that I've personally written which run under both NT and 95/98. Not
>> only that, they work with a WIDE VARIETY OF DRIVERS AND HARDWARE.
>> These are programs which do extensive I/O through drivers. (Do you
>> know what I/O is, Bennie?) And yet, they are still hardware dependent.
>> Fortunately, I know how to write Win32 programs which you appear to
>> erroneously believe are impossible to write, or exceptions to the
>> rule, or which programmers are restricted from writing by MS, and any
>> of the other technically-illiterate FUD you OS/2 zealots like to toss
>> around indiscriminately and blindly.
>>
>> My own software disproves your allegations about NT and Win32 and
>> Windows drivers, etc. And I'm hardly the only programmer who writes
>> Win32 stuff that runs on both NT and Win95/98. There are *lots* of
>> such Win32 programmers and programs. You just don't know about them
>> because you're hopelessly out of touch with the reality of Win32. You
>> apparently live in this nightmare dreamworld where you can't install a
>> Win32 application unless you have some sort of VxD mysteriously
>> written for that specific application.
>>
>> You're loony. Your FUD is loony. The mere fact that you think such
>> ridiculous claims of yours need to be disproven is testament to how
>> far out of touch you are with reality.
>>
>> >> (not that I expect you to get any more specific than your laughably
>> >> nebulous, unsubstantiated claim that there is something "eerie" about
>> >> the "Win32 specification" regarding VxDs). And I'll likely make you
>> >> look like the technically illiterate fool that so many OS/2 zealots
>> >> are nowadays
>>
>> >Actually, I'll give MS credit for NOT supporting VxDs in NT.  They
>> >are a source of instability and numerous "blue screen" crashes in
>> >Win 9x.  But, on the other hand, this situation does cause some
>> >confusion for those who want to use Win 32 software.  Not all Win32
>> >software that runs in Win 9x will run in NT.
>>
>> Hahahahah! Actually that is true. And by "explaining" why you think
>> that's so, you reveal how technically ignorant you truly are.
>>
>> The reason why some (actually, few -- mostly game software that uses
>> DirectX versions higher than 3.0 -- and that will change with NT 5)
>> Win32 software that runs in Win9X doesn't run in NT has ABSOLUTELY
>> NOTHING TO DO WITH DRIVERS.

>You are incorrect here.

No, I'm not. Just because you would like to believe so, and even utter
the words, doesn't make me incorrect.

I've already shown numerous specific examples that counter your
specious claims about Win32, and cited the existence of many more
examples being that I'm talking about typical Win32 software whereas
you appear to be talking about some program that you once found
bundled with your sound card.

>> As I said before, I *could* explain all of this to you, but I doubt
>> that you'd understand much of it, and worse, I believe that, due to
>> your zealous "love" for OS/2, you would deliberately choose not to
>> believe anything but the worst possible FUD about Windows, regardless

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          16-Oct-99 07:23:03
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 05:17:17
Subj: (2/2) Re: IBM re-evaluating consumer PC business

>> of how little resemblance to reality it bears (such as your above
>> statements about Win32 executables. Out to lunch, you are).

>> >The court records for the trial contain testimony that disproves
>> >your statement.

>> So you erroneously assume.

>And you've offered no proof to the contrary.  Try this URL:

>http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014850,00.html

Yep. It's all the hearsay of an IBM rep, contrary to your allegation
that MS made such statements about licensing stipulations.

>This article tells how Gary Norris explains to the court that MS did
>not allow IBM access to Win 95 until 15 minutes before the midnight
>launch of Win 95 on August 24th, 1995.  Why? Because IBM would not
>agree to cut back shipments of OS/2 and replace them with Windows.

So this IBM rep alleges.

But MS reps say otherwise.

Nevertheless, you've seen fit to spread inaccurate FUD indicating that
it was MS who stated these stipulations. It isn't. It's an IBM rep
stating that MS stated these stipulations. There's an important
difference. It's an IBM rep, and frankly, I haven't found them to be
all that trustworthy, especially the ones who deal with
sales/licensing/promotion.

>> But then, that appears to be how you "determined" what causes a
>> particular Win32 program not to run under NT. You sure as hell didn't
>> arrive at your deduction by gleaning it from proper, technical
>> documentation.
>>
>> And now, you're just looking more and more silly and uninformed as you
>> pursue a technical discussion that is clearly over your head

>You are just as mistaken about this as you are about the testimony
>at the MS vs DOJ trial.  If you need any further assistance finding
>the facts, just ask.  I've got other URLs that also support my position.

In fact, the above URL proves that you're relying strictly upon
hearsay from people who have a vested interest in attacking a major
competitor.

I expect that your ideas about Win32 are gotten from the same sources,
because those ideas clearly are not based upon Win32 technical
literature nor programming experience

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          16-Oct-99 08:07:18
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 05:17:17
Subj: (1/2) Re: IBM re-evaluating consumer PC business

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>> >> >>>Bennie Nelson
>> >> >>>Win32 software written for hardware that is supported by VxD drivers
>> >> >>>will not work in NT.

>> >> >>jglatt
>> >> >> It is not part of the "Win32 specifications" to produce "software
>> >> >> [specifically] written for hardware [drivers]". (Not that I believe
>> >> >> that you even have the slightest idea what you're talking about. I'm
>> >> >> sure that you're simply tossing around some buzz phrases that you
once
>> >> >> heard some other OS/2 nutcase rambling about Windows, and thought
that
>> >> >> it made for lovely sounding FUD). Indeed, it is part of the "Win32
>> >> >> specifications" to produce software that is hardware independent. The
>> >> >> reason why there are things called "drivers" is to make that so.
>> >> >> Obviously, this most basic programming concept has gone completely
>> >> >> over your head.

>> >> >Marty
>> >> >I think what he was trying to get at was the fact that there were
>> >> >historically, if not currently, several device drivers that existed
only
>> >> >in VxD form and therefore would not work in NT.

>> >> That's a driver issue, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Win32
>> >> applications. For example, the Win32 program that I just wrote will do
>> >> MIDI output upon both NT as well as Win95. But, it will use entirely
>> >> different drivers upon both platforms. For that matter, it will use
>> >> entirely different drivers for different MIDI interfaces even under
>> >> the same operating system. That's because a properly written Windows
>> >> application is hardware independent. Bennie doesn't know this.

>> >> Obviously, Bennie really doesn't know what he's talking about when he
>> >> uttered the quote about "Win32 software written for hardware that is
>> >> supported by VxD drivers", nor the technical considerations of such
>> >> issues.

>> >Actually, I know whereof I speak from experience.

>> Of really??? Just much "Win32 software" have you personally "written
>> for hardware that is supported by VxD drivers".

Note: No response from Bennie. And it's obvious why.

>>I have a web site
>>containing a dozen such programs that I've personally written. That's
>>why I know the FUD you're attempting to promulgate is so much
>>inaccurate hot air from someone who thinks he knows-it-all but is
>>obviously waaaaaaaaaaay over his head here, and doesn't really know
>>what he's talking about.

>I'm not spreading "fud."

Merely claiming so doesn't make it so. The fact that I've shown
numerous specific examples that contradict your claims, and cited many
more such examples since I'm talking about typical Win32 software (not
some program that you allegedly once got bundled with a sound card),
proves that you're spreading FUD.

It's obvious why you can't provide a number of specific examples to
support your bogus allegations.

>How can what you've written be taken seriously,

Because the examples I give actually exist and disprove your bogus
allegations.

What I can't take seriously is your bogus allegations, devoid of any
substantiation.

>when MS has admitted that Win 9x and NT are competing and incompatible
>implementations of Win32?

Care to provide a attributed quote from MS in which they admit that
"Win 9x and NT are competing and incompatible implementations of
Win32"? Or, is this another one of those "Microsoft said" things that
you got from some IBM salesman?

>They have been intending and working for years
>to merge these two platforms. They haven't succeeded.

Probably because they haven't been doing what you're claiming that
they're doing, just like when you revealed your "source" for what you
claim MS has said and done, it was revealed to be someone other than
MS.

>As I have said,
>NT's nonsupport of VxD type drivers is good.  And any software that
>requires hardware that is ONLY supported via a VxD driver will not
>work in NT.  That's a minor issue, anymore.

Win32 doesn't require VxDs. It runs fine with WDM and Kernel Mode
drivers. That's because it's hardware independent. I've been trying to
get this exceedingly simple point through your thick skull, but
obviously it's over your head.

Still, you'd think that someone who claims to be able to develop
drivers would be able to grasp a concept that any first year computer
science student is taught.

>>Show me the money, and then you won't be such a load of foolish,
>>misguided hot air.

>What's the URL for your site?

>>>Sound cards were not always supported under NT

>> This is, of course, a completely inaccurate statement (unless you're
>> talking about some early beta of NT akin to OS/2 1.0. I mean, at some
>> early point, OS/2 didn't support such things as JAVA, zip drives,
>> higher video resolutions, etc, etc, etc. But that still doesn't
>> explain why you're making flat-out-erroneous, unproven statements
>> about Win32 as it exists today).

>MS still provides hardware compatibility list for NT.  It's very
>existence proves that there are devices that are not supported by
>NT. If NT supported every device, there would be no need for a
>hardware compatibility list.

That's a HARDWARE compatibility list -- not a Win32 application
software compatibility list. As such, it's hardly any sort of
substantiation for your bogus claims about Win32 application software.

>> Obviously, you are completely unaware of NT's Kernel Mode Drivers and
>> its implementation of MCI. I have no doubt that you know absolutely
>> nothing about the details of NT's driver structure. Have you ever even
>> opened Art Baker's book to page 1??? I doubt it. Here it sits right
>> next to my computer -- one of the books that I'm currently reading. If
>> you're going to insist upon talking about NT drivers, maybe you read
>> it to clear up your misconceptions, such as the one above).

>> >because of the use of VxDs to access the
>> >hardware.

>> Um, you are apparently completely unaware that some sound card support
>> under Win 9X doesn't use VxDs. For example, my Roland RAP-10 audio
>> card is using a Win 3.1 driver under Win 9X which is NOT a VxD.

>Nowhere in any statement I have made did I state or imply that ALL
>soundcard devices have VxD drivers for Win 95 support.

And that's why your generalities about Win32 are so WRONG. They're
apparently based upon things such as hearsay from IBM employees, and
all sorts of oddball FUD that isn't even remotely related to what is
*really* happening with Win32 application support.

Maybe if you actually wrote some Win32 applications, you'd know
something about them.

But I pity the person who would ever foolishly hire you to write Win32
stuff. Clearly, you lack the knowledge to do so.

>How well do games run in NT that require DirectX 6?

They don't run without DirectX 6. The fact that NT 5 *will* have
DirectX 6 underscores how bogus is your allegation that there is some
sort of "design dichotomy" that prevents Win32 software from running
upon NT due to VxDs.

Obviously, the fact that VxDs exist, and are even used in DirectX
hasn't prevented DirectX from running on NT. Surprise, surprise.
That's because there's a lot more that you don't know about, for
example kernel mode drivers and WDM.

Learn something *before* you start spreading FUD.

>> Again, you simply do not know what you're talking about. Your ideas of
>> what are "true" and "false" about Win32, NT drivers, and other such
>> Windows issues are obviously based upon uninformed hearsay and
>> inaccurate FUD (no doubt disseminated from other technically
>> illiterate and uninformed OS/2 zealots).

>> I'll say it again because it bears noting the extent of your
>> fanaticism. I *could* explain all of this stuff to you so that you'd

>You say that, but nothing you've written gives a hint that you are able
>to deliver on this promise.  I would welcome an intelligent, courteous
>technical exchange with you.

I have absolutely no confidence that you're capable of understanding
it. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing except the ability to
spread bogus, unsubstantiated, groundless, uninformed FUD.

*Where* is your alleged "intelligent technical exchange"????

>> actually know the truth instead of your distorted, inaccurate version,
>> but I doubt that you'd understand it, and much worse, I'm convinced
>> that your overzealous "love" for OS/2 has made you hellbent upon
>> believing only the absolute worst FUD about Windows which anyone can
>> conjure up, regardless of accuracy and any sense of perspective.

>You "conviction" is quite misplaced.  I own four copies of Windows.  Win 3.0,
>Win 3.11, and two copies of Win 95.  Win 3.0 is not in use, but the other
>three are installed and are regularly used in my household.  I also have
three
>copies of Warp v4 and one copy of Linux installed.

And I happen to own a bit of OS/2 stuff. So?

>At work, I have NT 4 and Warp 4 installed on my desktop system, and I am
>System Administator for a server running NT Server.  I support Windows NT,
>Win 95, and Win 98 on desktops in our department.

God help the person who needs some information about Win32 software or
drivers. Personally, I wouldn't go to you. You don't appear to know
much about them, and what you do claim to know is rife with technical
inaccuracies and distortions.

You've been reading way too many IBM white papers.

>> To be sure, your own FUD is far from accurate, and obviously lacks the
>> perspective of being spoken from personal experience with these
>> programming issues, despite your undemonstrated claim otherwise.

>Is that a confession?  Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote that?
>It sure describes your "contributions" to this newsgroup.

Um, *I* am the guy who has software out there that can be found in a
number of places. You're the guy with only allegations, claims, and a
whole lot of hot air.

>>>This method is supported in Win 9x and not supported in NT.

>> Um, NT drivers have plenty of access to the same hardware as VxDs, and
>> can do the same things with that hardware, thereby providing a device
>> independent (ie, typical) Win32 application the same support.

>This is quite true.  Nothing I have stated has denied that.  The point
>here is that to provide support for both Win 9x and NT, when a VxD has
>been developed for Win 9x, another device driver must be developed.

And that has nothing to do with Win32 applications being allegedly
tied to VxDs, despite your misguided claims otherwise.

>After all your blusteriness has dissipated, you've admitted that I'm right.

No, I'm telling you that you're wrong. Do you always hear everything
incorrectly?

>> Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. I guess that's
>> why you've been unable to provide even one example to buttress your
>> uninformed FUD, and cite it as typical, whereas I have an entire web
>> site of software that refutes your bogus depictions about "Win32
>> software" and I cite countless other Win32 software as likewise.

>You've not supplied one counter example.  You've merely alluded to their
>existence.

How ironic coming from the person who "demonstrates" his
qualifications to even be discussing programming issues by alluding to
some alleged program he once wrote for his wife!

If you can't find even one person who can verify that I've written a
number of programs, then you truly are as helpless as I suspect you to
be.

>Besides, all of those examples do not establish that my
>point is wrong.  All I'd have to do is provide one example.

Which you even have yet to do, for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, one
example doesn't substantiate the incorrect generalities/FUD you've
spewed about Win32 software, drivers, and design.

>> >Any Win32 software written for that soundcard would not work because
>> >the soundcard could not be accessed.
>>
>> Win32 programmers don't write for *a* soundcard. We write for all
>> soundcards. I *write* such Win32 software. It accesses the soundcard
>> under both NT and Win 9X. I know what I'm talking about.

>If you go back and look at my statement, I clearly indicated that the
>software was bundled by the manufacturer of the card.

One program hardly proves that your bogus generalities about Win32
software, drivers, and design is anything but uninformed FUD.

>This is a
>common occurrence: proprietary software written for a propietary
>hardware device and supplied in the package with that device.

No, a common occurence is the multitude of Win32 software that is NOT
bundled and designed to work with specific hardware. These are the
multitude of examples that prove your bogus generalities about Win32
software, drivers, and design to be so much uninformed FUD.

>> You obviously haven't written any such software. That's undoubtably
>> why you don't know what you're talking about.

>I have written hundreds of programs, thousands of lines of code, using
>many programming languages.

I seriously doubt it.

>You obviously have me confused with someone else.

Being that you keep mistaking IBM reps for MS spokesmen, I rather
think that you're the one who is confused.

>> >> >Until recently, USB
>> >> >support was in this category among other things.  Of course, with the
>> >> >new WDM this is no longer an issue.
>> >>
>> >> Drivers are ALWAYS an issue on any platform. It's a fundamental
>> >> "layer" of any operating system, and if you don't have the driver
>> >> support you need, you're in trouble. For example, with my program
>> >> above, it may even exhibit different levels of support and
>> >> performance, depending upon the particular drivers that are used with
>> >> the app. That's the way that things always are with drivers...
>> >> anywhere they are.
>> >>
>> >> But that's a support issue, not some alleged "design issue" about the
>> >> "Win32 specification" and some sort of supposed "software written for
>> >> hardware that is supported by VxD drivers".

>It is a design issue.

No, it's a support issue.

>Win 9x provides a different architecture for
>hardware support than NT.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Win32 applications. They are
not drivers, and they are not dependent upon hardware or driver
designs as you erroneously presume.

>> >> And frankly, an OS/2 user should be the last person to start trying to
>> >> denigrate the driver support of Windows. Historically, OS/2 driver
>> >> support has been as dismal as any operating system has ever seen.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          16-Oct-99 08:07:18
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 05:17:17
Subj: (2/2) Re: IBM re-evaluating consumer PC business

>> >OS/2 driver support is better now than when Win 95 was released.  As I
>> >recall, there was a huge list of thousands of devices not being supported
>> >in Win 95 during the beta.  OS/2's support for devices is far better now
>> >than NT 4.0 when it was released.
>>
>> Ah, so then your recent FUD about the reputed current "design" and
>> state of Win32 is actually based upon some preliminary betas of NT and
>> Win 9X. I see. That explains a lot.
>
>Not a good inference to draw from my statement.  What else can we conclude?
>How about: OS/2 is supposed to be dead, and hardware device support is one
>way to prove that OS/2 is dead.  BUT, OS/2's device support now is better
>than Win 95 and NT 4 when they were released.  Can we conclude then that
>Win 95 and NT were Dead On Arrival?  Obviously not.  But, if Win 95 and NT
>were not labelled "dead" given the level of device support when they were
>released, why should OS/2 be considered dead when it's current level of
>device support exceeds the device support of those two products when they
>were released?

OS/2 is dead because its manufacturer is phasing it out. It's not
Microsoft that is having difficulty supporting its software designs.
It's IBM.

>> It explains why you don't know what you're talking about today.

>> Incidentally, driver support for both Win9X and NT are better than
>> OS/2 *now*. But I guess that when one is living in the past like you
>> are, what's happening right now doesn't really matter.

>OS/2 supports more than an adequate number of devices.  Furthermore, the
>devices supported by OS/2 tend to be the better quality devices.

Hahahhahaha!!!! riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

That SB Pro sure beats the hell out of that crummy Digital Audio Labs
CardD.

hahahahah!!! You OS/2 zealots are *always* good for a laugh.

>I don't care that OS/2 doesn't support every sound card or every video card
>or every printer.  I don't need one of each.  What I want is high quality
>products that are not a source of instability and problems.  With OS/2, if
>the product is supported, it's more likely than not to be a trouble-free
>experience.  You cannot say that for Win 9x.

Yes, I can say that for Win 9x. That's what I use.

Are you never tired of making flat-out incorrect statements?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                16-Oct-99 08:41:18
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 10:34:11
Subj: Re: IBM's Marketing Skills

From: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
  Tim Timmins <[e-mail]> wrote:
> How about person to person, and of course the Repository.


The Device driver repository (I think that is what you mean)?
Really is not that big of a deal.  Those (repository's) have
been around since the early Fidonet/RBBS days (1983).

Person to Person is really only an app.  All the suggestions I
listed, are potential industries on their own.  Ether net is
huge.  3com is huge, PCI is everywhere, Mwave (sound card
industry as well as modem) is huge.  Os/2 (IBM coulda, woulda,
shouda, DIDN'T)
>
> I don't think Mwave got screwed, it just got overtaken by the
rapid
> growth of music and graphics on the internet.

If music on the net is growing, then demand for a sound card
(that also included a 28800 modem, also would have a greater
market penetration.

>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> [e-mail] wrote:
>
> > As I was driving home today, I was thinking about all the
> > technology that IBM has done that the marketing department
has
> > really screwed up.  I came up with these 4 examples....
> >
> > Do any of you out there know of others?
> >
> > Microchannel  Far ahead of the ISA buss, as well as the EISA
> > buss, and only matched today with the PCI Buss.
> >
> > MWave         Really an engineering and software marvel.
Actead
> > as a sound card, and a Modeom at 33600
> >
> > Token Ring Lan Adapter  Only today with switching hubs can
> > Ethernet match what Token ring did 10 years ago!
> >
> > OS/2.         Far ahead of Windows even today.
> >
> > How long will it take Gerstner to realise that IBM's
technical
> > prowess is second to none?  The IBM marketing dept has
screwed
> > up more times than any other company in any industry.  It is
> > only the inertia of such a large company that they can
continue,
> > blind to the fact that they cannot market their way out of a
wet
> > paper bag!  Now IBM is considering slicing off all desktop
PC
> > production to Dell and Acer.....  however it is not the
hardware
> > division of IBM that is at fault but rather the marketing
dept.
> > In a few years IBM will be strictly a service company and no
> > longer an innovative computer company.  Has anyone ever sent
a
> > message like this to Gerstner?
> >
> > No other company in the computer business has blown the
> > marketing sooo badly.  Surely this must be on the minds of a
few
> > IBMers?
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                16-Oct-99 08:43:26
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 10:34:11
Subj: Re: IBM's Marketing Skills

From: [e-mail]

In article <380730e2$2$tfs$mr2ice@news>,
  Gilbert Saint-flour <[e-mail]> wrote:
> In <7u6j0q$6v$[e-mail]>, on 15 Oct 1999 at 06:53,
> [e-mail] said:
>
> >As I was driving home today, I was thinking about all the
technology
> >that IBM has done that the marketing department has really
screwed up.
> >I came up with these 4 examples....
> >Microchannel, MWave, Token Ring, OS/2.
>
> You only have a partial view of what IBM is selling.  Yes,
poor marketing
> screwed up the things you mention, but IBM is very successful
in other
> areas: S/390 mainframes, AS/400, RS/6000, Disk storage, Memory
chips,
> Software, IT Services, etc.  PCs are a commodity and IBM isn't
very good
> unless they can have a large profit margin.
>
> Gilbert Saint-flour <[e-mail]>
>
>

All of the mentioned products could have had an large and
profitable margin.  There are many companies that are profitable
today making lessor products.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            16-Oct-99 09:10:13
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 10:34:11
Subj: Re: IBM Warp Client 5 is under development

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:32:27, Les Bell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> > Apparently, way back in 1995, when serious coding started on Warp 4 at
> > IBM, there were already so-called "outline projects" for Warp 5 and 6,
> > designed to be server/inter-intranet centric NOS's with only token
> > "hooks" for optionally including "thin" OS/2 clients.... but catering
> > mainly for non-IBM developed clients in interim until IBM's next
> > generation of truly portable macro kernels evolved sufficiently to
> > displace or offer a viable alternative to a MS desktop client.
> > (apparently IBM was way ahead of MS in cristal ball-gazing <G>).
> >
> > The person who confided this to me (anonymously, because - as usual -
> > bound by ongoing NDA's) wonders what would have become of these
> > outlines. It is interesting however, that both Warp 3 and 4 started
> > life in exactly the same fashion. So, all things equal, there is a
> > really fat chance that there will ultimately be a (sort of) Warp 5.
> > And even 6.
>
> In the good old days, after IBM was a hardware company, but before it
> became a services company, it developed operating system software for a
> variety of platforms. Because of the size of the company, it was felt
> that internal competition would be a good thing, and so it was not
> uncommon for there to be several competitive OS development projects
> going on simultaneously. For example, at one time, back in the late
> seventies or early eighties, there were three OS's codenamed Nina, Pinta
> and Santa Maria under development. Only one would eventually see the
> light of day (don't ask me which one - I don't know), and it was said
> that there was no stigma attached to being involved in a failed project
> (yeah, right!).
>
> There was also a project called "Project X" which was to produce a
> single operating system, something like VM/CMS, that would run on
> everything from PC's to mainframes. That never got off the ground, but
> it did spawn several offshoots, amongst them SAA, and a thing called the
> PC/370, which had an additional CPU card containing a 68000, a modified
> microcode 68000 and a modified microcode 8087, all intended to provide
> the 370 instruction set.
>
> [I honestly can't remember where I got this information; it probably
> came up in conversation with somebody at IBM, but I'm pretty sure my
> recollection is accurate.]
>
> So, yes, IBM did "blue-sky" a lot, back then. But times have changed;
> and IBM has clearly decided that the best prospect for avoiding a
> Microsoft-dominated world is to support Linux. After all, there's going
> to be lots of consulting revenue there . . .
>
I'm with you on all that, but the fact remains that the Warp 5 and 6
outlines were follow-ups on an existing (and reasonably successful)
product line. Of course, there's no telling what they've done with
them since, but at least Warp 4 made it pretty unscafed from the
design stage. The outlines also seem to be in synch with IBM's current
strategy towards the permanently connected desktop.

Agreed, for a service-based company, Warp is a nightmare: too few
things go wrong to make money from support <heh heh!>. And linux is in
the centre at the moment. It's always difficult to tell hype from
strategy...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

|---------------------------------------------------|
|            <undefined O/S> boot options           |
|                                                   |
|               Please choose from list             |
|                                                   |
|       <crash>         <OS/2>        <linux>       |
|---------------------------------------------------|

NT-vocates made trouble, so here's the first P. C. sig-line.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           16-Oct-99 07:54:19
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 14:29:06
Subj: Re: IBM's Marketing Skills

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7u9ds7$kh$[e-mail]>, on 10/16/99 at 08:43 AM,
   [e-mail] said:

> All of the mentioned products could have had an large and
> profitable margin.  There are many companies that are profitable today
> making lessor products.

Many of the companies mentioned in this thread are profitable to be sure.
However, none is a truly large company like IBM, AT&T, General Motors,
etc.

Take for example Hayes, USRobotics, Practical Peripherals, Cardinal, etc.
which companies started out making modems. They and dozens, literally
dozens, of others are all either out of business or the property of some
larger company. Hayes is bankrupt and its technology the property of Zoom.
3Com owns USR and is losing money on modems. Practical Peripherals and
Cardinal were absorbed by Hayes before it went bankrupt for the second
time.

Personal Computers in general and items such as monitors, sound cards,
keyboards, disk drives, etc., etc. are commodity items. Major
manufacturers generally do not deal in commodity items which cost more
than a couple of bucks. Why do you suppose that General Electric, General
Motors, Westinghouse, etc. got out of the home appliance business, the
refrigerator business, the room air conditioner business?

Take, for example, refrigerators. There are dozens of brands in a large
appliance store. But most are made by two companies which own such brand
names as Gibson, Whirlpool, Frigidaire. Take for example home stoves. You
can find the Hotpoint brand in stores as well as ones with GE's name. But
neither is a product of General Electric any more, GE sold the names.

Take television sets. You can buy an RCA branded set. But it is not the
product of RCA which is itself now part of Lockheed Martin. It is the
product of Thompson Electronics, a Canadian firm. You cannot buy a GE
television any longer.

Try to buy a telephone made by AT&T or Northern Telecom. The brands exist,
but the products bearing those labels are not made by nor sold by either
AT&T or Northern. They are made offshore by small companies which bought
rights to the brand names.

There is a reason why major corporations got out of the consumer market.
The reason is the cost of advertising, support, etc. involved in selling
and supporting end users. There is not enough of a profit margin vs. that
provided by the core manufacturing business.

IBM is really not a consumer products company and never was. It was a very
successful business which produced tools for large businesses, not for
small offices, home users, etc. It still produces Intel based PC's for
sale to companies and corporations large enough to require networking,
servers, etc. as well as workstations. It will continue to do so too.

But IBM found after nearly 20 years of trying that there just isn't much
money in selling to the end user either directly or via resellers. The PC
company has been separated from IBM and set up as an independent
subsidiary. This means that it is trying to dump the whole thing as they
did with Lexmark. PC's, printers, etc. are commodity items. Individuals
will not, as a rule, pay a premium of 50% or more for a quality product
vs. a commodity (clone) product.

Moreover, one must recognize why IBM ventured into the PC market in the
first place. IBM designed and sold the first PC's for a very interesting
reason and it wasn't to get into the consumer market. The PC was a tool to
sell more mainframes, more monitors, more keyboards, more printers to
large businesses. It was a response to a very poor economy during the
Carter administration coupled with the loss of the typewriter business
when the Selectric patents expired. During the late 1970's and into the
first 18 months of the Reagan administration, IBM was having a difficult
time selling mainframes because its market, the Fortune 1000, banks,
insurance companies, telephone companies, and such, generally had extra
capacity in computer departments.

Mainframes are sold on the number of machine cycles available and most of
IBM's customers had excess capacity. Moreover, IBM which spent nearly 20
years trying to make money with typewriters saw its penetration drop
drastically once the patents on the Selectric expired and dozens of
companies started making clones which sold for half or less the cost of a
Selectric.

For more than 30 years IBM had been trying to get terminals into the
executive offices of its customers and on secretary's desks. But they
weren't having much success because the executives and managers didn't
want others to have access to their personal correspondence, employee
ratings, sales figures, etc. IBM came up with the bright idea that if they
could put one of these new-fangled PC's with a disk drive in those offices
and on those secretarial desks both hooked to the mainframe (this is where
Token Ring came in), they could sell a lot more keyboards, monitors,
printers, etc. while simultaneously soaking up those excess machine
cycles. Thus was born Project Chess which developed the IBM PC.

From the very beginning, the PC was treated as an orphan or step child. A
separate division was set up to build, market, and support it. It was
designed to be an open architecture because IBM saw the inevitability that
like typewriters and adding machines, it would become a commodity before
it generated significant profits for IBM and as a commodity would not
generate sufficient revenue for long before smaller, offshore companies
started selling clones.

I truly believe that IBM will be OUT of the PC business as regards sale of
its products to individuals and SOHO's before the end of the 20th Century
on December 31, 2000. It spent billions making hardware and writing
software for PC's with very, very little to show for the billions on the
bottom line. As it is, ThinkPads today are not made by IBM any more than
Lockheed Martin made my RCA television sets. My ThinkPad says on the back
"assembled in the US with parts from the US and other countres". In point
of fact, most of those parts are made by third party vendors, something no
other IBM product in the past contained unless it was made by IBM in one
of its overseas plants. I recently bought an IBM branded 15 Inch SVGA
monitor at Staples for $99. It says it was produced for IBM in Korea.

We individual and SOHO users of OS/2 should be very, very grateful that
IBM did sell OS/2 technology to the financial, insurance, etc. market that
is the core of its business. Thanks to that, we will continue to have the
best operating system for our Intel based PC's well into the 3rd Millenium
because it is the basis of WarpServer for eBusiness.

Rather than blast IBM for selling companies computers with alternate
operating systems such as NT, we should be grateful because those servers
and workstations tied to the servers make money for IBM. The more servers
they sell, the more workstations they sell, the more money there is in the
corporate coffers to support, expand, update, etc. the niche products our
niche market wants.

Look at what happened on Wall Street this week as well as in London,
Frankfurt, Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo, etc. Stocks dropped and dropped big
time. Technology stocks on the NASDAQ dropped other than some recent IPO's
in the internet field. Alone among the computer makers, IBM was UP. Dell
was down 3.45% yesterday. Compaq was down 4.77%. Gateway was down 4.87%.
Microsoft was down 2.89%. Even 3Com was down.

Why? Because IBM is in for the long haul. It is NOT a consumer product
company and shouldn't act like one.

Long after your local ISP is history, long after your PC is a relic in the
attic or the dump, long after your grandchildren are grandparents there
will be an IBM. It was there when my grandparents were infants before the
turn of the century and will still be there when my greatgrandson is a
grandparent because it knows where its market lies and how to sell to that
market. IBM knows how to admit its inabilities, acknowledge its failures,
cut its losses, and move on. And the way it moves steadily ahead is to
continue to sell ATM and teller machines to banks, to sell mainframes to
government and industry, to sell cash management and inventory control
systems to large retailers such as GAP, several regional and national food
retailers, etc.

My grandfather lamented the demise of Pierce Arrow to the day he died. My
father never was satisfied with any car he bought after Packard went out
of business. I still pine for my Studebaker Golden Hawk. My mother still
missed her Rambler to the day she died last year. All realized that the
cars which replaced them were superior, but nostalgia is a powerful
emotion.

So, stop whining and complaining about IBM not issuing a new version of
Warp. Stop bitching about lack of support for whizbang game hardware. Quit
bellyaching about not having the latest version of Poopertosser available
for OS/2. IBM views the PC as a BUSINESS tool. Through Lotus it offers the
most powerful suite of BUSINESS tools for both Warp and various flavors of
Windows.

If you want a business tool and are willing to pay for one, IBM is there
for you. If you want a 100 in 1 game machine cum typewriter cum telephone
cum camera then go find Dell, Gateway, etc. and buy a game machine.



--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 9
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           16-Oct-99 09:07:23
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 14:29:07
Subj: Re: IBM re-evaluating consumer PC business

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 10/16/99 at 08:07 AM,
   [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) said:


> Care to provide a attributed quote from MS in which they admit that "Win
> 9x and NT are competing and incompatible implementations of Win32"? Or,
> is this another one of those "Microsoft said" things that you got from
> some IBM salesman?

Among others, Steve Ballmer said it in an article in Computer Reseller
News if memory serves. MS has announced that Windows 98 is a dead end
product. Windows 2000, its replacement, is based on NT, not the Win98
design. From what I have heard, W2K will not support Win 3.1 or DOS
applications. Certainly NT 4.x doesn't.

I do not and never did work for IBM. I do not and never did work for MS.
But I have been an IBM customer for more than 40 years first for punch
card equipment, the first electronic calculators (604), the 1401, the
first mark sense equipment, etc. My father had the first Selectric
typewriter leased in Philadelphia. Two of my grandchildren attend brand
new schools with IBM clocks on the wall just as the school I attended in
1944 and which was built in 1903 had. My grandfather had an IBM cash
register in his grocery store before my mother was born in 1911 (it was
sold and serviced by the company which was renamed IBM). The brand new
Acme Super Market has IBM cash registers.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                              16-Oct-99 10:30:20
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 16:44:01
Subj: Re: Hey Mr. WarpCity...

From: Dennis Peterson <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Howdy Tim! Warpstock is this Saturday, and I've still got that $50 that
> > says you won't be there. Feel free to prove me wrong!
> >
> > See you there everybody!
> >
> Tim has been seriously injured in an accident.

Is there more info about this? Twit or no, there is always room for
concern for a fellow's well-being.

--
dp
http://eddiekieger.com/~dkp/cgi-bin/ek3auction.cgi?Books&940908118
http://eddiekieger.com/~dkp/cgi-bin/ek3auction.cgi?Books&940908959

                 Support Eddie Kieger III at http://eddiekieger.com
                 Got a home page? Please add a link to Eddie's site!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: I'm not organized at all (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          16-Oct-99 19:18:23
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 16:44:01
Subj: Re: IBM re-evaluating consumer PC business

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>> Care to provide a attributed quote from MS in which they admit that "Win
>> 9x and NT are competing and incompatible implementations of Win32"? Or,
>> is this another one of those "Microsoft said" things that you got from
>> some IBM salesman?

>Bob Germer
>Among others, Steve Ballmer said it in an article in Computer Reseller
>News if memory serves.

Steve Ballmer said "Win 9x and NT are competing and incompatible
implementations of Win32"??? Could you provide the issue number as I
seriously doubt this is a quote of his.

>MS has announced that Windows 98 is a dead end
>product. Windows 2000, its replacement, is based on NT, not the Win98
>design.

First of all, such a paraphase hardly comes close to making the
statement "Win 9x and NT are competing and incompatible
implementations of Win32", despite Bennie's typically groundless
claims that such a statement was made by Microsoft. What MS is saying
there is exactly what I told Bennie that MS is saying -- that NT
supercedes Win9x.

Indeed, it is exactly quotes like the above from MS reps such as Steve
Ballmer which dispute Bennie's uninformed claims that MS are somehow
struggling to merge the two products unsuccessfully. They aren't
merging. They're transitioning, just like was done from MS-DOS to
OS/2, and the way that IBM has transitioned off of the OS/2 API to
JAVA.

Bennie seems to have a *lot* of trouble understanding all of this.
Perhaps it's all of his incorrect assumptions about Win32 design which
are confusing him?

>From what I have heard, W2K will not support Win 3.1 or DOS
>applications. Certainly NT 4.x doesn't.

You heard incorrectly.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          16-Oct-99 19:50:11
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 16:44:01
Subj: Re: IBM's Marketing Skills

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Bob Germer

[snipped a bit of your discussion about large/small corporations and
profitability]

I do agree that large companies with huge payrolls and expenses need
to sell large ticket items (which can generate a large bit of profit
per sale). Otherwise, when a large company gets into the small
commodity market, it typically has to compete with numerous small
competitors who can more easily match and undercut the large
corporation's product line and pricing. (ie, It's this "commodity of
scale" that Steven Den Beste sometimes refers to). In order for a
large corporation to compete in the commodity market, it has to
minimize its overhead as much as possible (ie, for example, pay close
to minimum wage and otherwise keep salaries down -- which IBM
historically hasn't done and would find hard to do being that it needs
a lot of *verly* technically trained people to handle development of
its large ticket items).

But large ticket items are not easy for those smaller companies to
develop and market. They require much larger capital to do so. There's
a reason why Acer computers doesn't sell large mainframes. So, in that
market, IBM doesn't have to compete with smaller companies that can
afford to undercut IBM (because those companies can't even afford to
get into the market).

It makes perfect sense why IBM consistently does poorly in marketing
small commodity items. Typically, if IBM does make such items, they
are used as "loss leaders" to promote the sales of large ticket items.

But then, this is the reason why people who are buying small commodity
items should be wary of purchasing IBM products. At best, you're
buying a loss leader product. That is precisely what OS/2 is today.
And worse, it is a loss leader product that is being phased out in
favor of other loss leader products (such as Linux, or other IBM
operating systems that require those big ticket machines to run). An
operating system that doesn't promote use of IBM big hardware is
pretty much useless to IBM.

==========================================

I also note your examples of small companies that have failed. To be
sure, just being a small company with low operating expenses is itself
not a guarantee of success. Sure, it helps. But there are other
factors involved.

So, consumers shouldn't assume that just because a company is small,
they're going to get good service and products.

But, to be sure, they aren't going to get good service and products on
an individual basis from a large corporation like IBM, unless they're
buying big ticket items, and perhaps even lots of them. (ie, If all
you bought from GM was a door handle, and not a car, GM wouldn't have
much interest in you either).

>There is a reason why major corporations got out of the consumer market.
>The reason is the cost of advertising, support, etc. involved in selling
>and supporting end users. There is not enough of a profit margin vs. that
>provided by the core manufacturing business.

Actually, I think it's more the fact that they have a lot more
competitors with lower operating expenses who can match and undercut
the large corporation's product line and pricing.

>IBM is really not a consumer products company and never was.

I agree 100%.

>I truly believe that IBM will be OUT of the PC business as regards sale of
>its products to individuals and SOHO's before the end of the 20th Century
>on December 31, 2000.

I don't know as if it will be that quickly. But I agree that they'll
be dropping most, if not all, of their consumer-oriented products as
quickly as they deem feasible. (ie, I believe that IBM executives are
currently in favor of dropping such products).

But given the dynamics of business, I expect that, at some point,
management will change around enough, that some new people will come
in and have this "great, new idea" to persue the home consumer again.
And then, IBM will be back in the small commodity business again. And
so it goes.... around and around and around.

>stop whining and complaining about IBM not issuing a new version of
>Warp. Stop bitching about lack of support for whizbang game hardware. Quit
>bellyaching about not having the latest version of Poopertosser available
>for OS/2.

Right. If you really want this sort of support, seek it out from a
company that offers it, such as Microsoft. Don't struggle with a
company that has no interest in selling the particular type of
commodity which you're seeking.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          16-Oct-99 14:58:04
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 16:44:01
Subj: Re: IBM re-evaluating consumer PC business

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.os2.advocacy, Bob Germer posted :

==8<===
> > Care to provide a attributed quote from MS in which they admit that "Win
> > 9x and NT are competing and incompatible implementations of Win32"? Or,
> > is this another one of those "Microsoft said" things that you got from
> > some IBM salesman?
>
> Among others, Steve Ballmer said it in an article in Computer Reseller
> News if memory serves. MS has announced that Windows 98 is a dead end
> product. Windows 2000, its replacement, is based on NT, not the Win98
> design. From what I have heard, W2K will not support Win 3.1 or DOS
> applications. Certainly NT 4.x doesn't.

Win3.1 and DOS apps not win32 apps.

==8<===

--
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
         <remove _nospam_>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                    16-Oct-99 17:00:27
  To: All                                               16-Oct-99 19:52:07
Subj: [tholen] Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Jason S.)

Tholen tholened the following first-level quoted material to
comp.os.os2.advocacy:

>I wrote:

>>>>>> Tholen was *twice* nominated for Usenet Kook of the Month -- the first
>>>>>> time by Roberto Alsina back in 1997,

>>>>> Alsina is the person who accused me of posting an average of 134
articles
>>>>> every day, which was ludicrous.  When he pointed to his alleged
evidence,
>>>>> it became obvious that he didn't even bother to check the range of
dates.
>>>>> Even then, he continued to insist that he was right, until others
started
>>>>> getting on his case.  How ironic that he nominated me rather than
himself.

>>>> None of this changes the fact that you were nominated in 1997.

>>> It does demonstrate that person responsible did not have his facts
>>> straight and wasn't interested in getting them straight.

>> The critical fact -- your kookiness -- was correctly noted, Dave.

>Incorrect, given that there isn't any on my part to note.

ROTFLMAO

>There is
>some on Roberto's part, however, namely his ridiculous accusation
>that I posted an average of 134 articles to USENET every day, and
>his failure to admit the error even after it was demonstrated to him.

Evidence, please.

>>> Rather coincidentally, you also relied on false information in the
>>> nomination that you prepared.

>> I relied on actual posts of yours, for the most part.

>What did you rely on for the rest, Jason, and just how much is "the
>most part"?

Let's see. The nomination was 2142 lines (not including headers), and 2064
of those lines were either from your posts or from Jeff Glatt's gallery of
comments about you.

>>> Rather coincidentally, you also relied on false information in the
>>> nomination that you prepared.

>> Is that "false information," Dave?

>The National Lampoon relied on actual statements made by Richard Nixon.
>For example, Nixon said "I am not a crook."  Except the National
>Lampoon left out a critical piece of information, namely "not".  They
>thereby turned the actual statement into false information.  You used
>a similar, though not identical, approach.

No, because I did not alter your posts, Dave.

>>>>>> and the second time by me, for what turned out to be the February/March
>>>>>> 1998 KOTM contest (don't ask -- I don't know why). This second
nomination
>>>>>> came in the wake of Tholen's notorious "kook and a queer" comment

>>>>> Actually, that's the wake of your notorious attempts to "get a rise" out
>>>>> of me.  Put the onus where it belongs, Jason:  on you, not me.

>>>> Typical Tholen attempt to obfuscate the *real* issue.

>>> Noting an important historical fact that you left out is not
>>> obfuscation.

>> Dave, the issue is your kookiness.

>What alleged "kookiness", Jason?  That's rather ironic, coming from
>someone who spends time on USENET trying to "get a rise" out of
>others.

Prove it, if you think you can.

>>>>>> There was no evidence of tampering

>>>>> Incorrect.  The voting deadline was extended,

>>>> ..which is not evidence of tampering...

>>> Prove that the outcome was not affected by the deadline extension.

>> The burden to prove that the extension affected the outcome lies on
>> your shoulders, Dave. You made a claim: back it up.

>You're the one claiming that the results of the ballot should be
>believed, Jason.  The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.

Dave, you are the only one challenging the validity of the results. Prove
it, if you think you can.

>>>>> and I know that at least one vote wasn't counted.

>>>> ..for a person who wasn't nominated,

>>> Which makes the fact that you received a vote even more significant.

>> Which explains why it wasn't counted.

>It does no such thing.  Rather, it demonstrates more evidence of
>tampering.

Hardly. Reread the rules, Dave.

>>>> so the alleged vote was a nullity.

>>> On the contrary, your actions earned you that vote.  Too bad the
>>> significance is lost on you.

>> Even assuming arguendo that someone did vote for me, you got more
>> than enough votes to win.

>Prove that you didn't get more, Jason.  Your actions certainly
>earned the disdain of several people in sci.astro.

You made the claim -- prove it, if you think you can, Dave.

>>>>>> Tholen claimed that someone named "Wayne Strang" (who was not even
>>>>>> nominated)

>>>>> Incorrect.  Consult deja.com for proof.

>>>> Dave, the ballot has been reposted repeatedly.

>>> The result showing Wayne Strang's election was reposted.

>> Do you mean the post by the December 1997 Kook of the Month that
>> declared "Wayne Strang" to be the unanimous winner?

>I mean the post showing that Wayne Strang won.

You mean the post from the December 1997 Kook of the Month.

>> Odd, since you claim that I got a vote, and I know that you got at
>> least one vote yourself.

>That was a different, unofficial, "tongue-in-cheek", tampered with,
>ballot, Jason.

That was the official ballot, Dave, as Kevin explained to you.

>>>> "Wayne Strang" (whoever that is) was not on it.

>>> Incorrect.

>> Reference?

>Deja.com.

Why not cite "the whole world" as your reference, Dave?

>>>> Now, it is possible that a nomination was made,

>>> More than just possible.  One was indeed made.

>> Prove it, if you think you can.

>See the above-mentioned posting, Jason.

Which posting, Dave?

>>>> but the rules require a second, and it appears that no second was made --
>>>> thus, he was not properly nominated under the rules.

>>> Then how did he manage to win?

>> He didn't, Dave.

>Incorrect, Jason.

He didn't win, Dave.

>>>>>> won the election and complained that a vote cast by some unnamed person
>>>>>> allegedly for me was not counted.

>>>>> You want actual names, Jason?

>>>> Provide it, if you think you can.

>>> I said "names", Jason, not "name", thus your use of "it" is
>>> inappropriate.

>> Provide them, if you think you can.

>Having memory problems, Jason?  Deja.com can help.

Typical Tholen evasion.

>>>>> Check the people who criticized you for
>>>>> your "campaigning" in sci.astro.

>>>> Are you alleging that these alleged people voted for me, Dave?

>>> The people are not alleged, Jason.  You quickly left sci.astro after
>>> you were criticized multiple times.  Consult deja.com if you can't
>>> remember their names.

>> I was never subscribed to sci.astro, Dave, so it is illogical to
>> claim that I "left" that group.

>You posted to sci.astro, Jason.  You then disappeared after receiving
>considerable criticism.  It is therefore not illogical to claim that
>you left.

In your little world of "logic," I suppose.

>>>>> As for the person who contacted me
>>>>> privately to say that he voted for you, just what do you think the
>>>>> word "privately" means?

>>>> I imagine that it means that this alleged person allegedly sent you
>>>> an email.

>>> It means that I won't betray a confidence, Jason.

>> ..preferring to make typical Tholen unsubstantiated claims.

>On the contrary, the vote counter has the substantiation, Jason.

Do you mean Robbie Honerkamp, Dave?

>>>>>> Tholen conveniently disregarded the fact that I was not nominated in
>>>>>> making this complaint.

>>>>> Doesn't change the fact that you received at least one vote, and quite
>>>>> possibly more, perhaps even the most.

>>>> And perhaps you were on the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963, Dave.

>>> Non sequitur.

>> Whatever.

>Typical Jason S.

Typical Tholen.

>>>>>> The second KOTM title that Dave won

>>>>> I haven't won any, Jason.

>>>> Incorrect.

>>> Still trying to foist your unofficial, "tongue-in-cheek", tampered
>>> results on the unsuspecting reader, eh Jason?

>> I simply refer to the poll that was taken by someone other than me
>> in CSMA earlier this year. They're not "my" results.

>Also tampered with.  You and Edwin had thousands of votes that
>disappeared.

Because the people who ran the polling site detected and corrected
the tampering problem, I believe.

>>>>>> was started by someone calling himself "ZnU" who frequents
>>>>>> comp.sys.mac.advocacy. This person set up a CSMA Kook poll on one
>>>>>> of those polling websites that will run impromptu polls for anyone.
>>>>>> There were about 15 candidates (chosen arbitrarily by "ZnU") and
>>>>>> Tholen won the vote.

>>>>> Incorrect.  You and Edwin both had thousands of votes that disappeared.

>>>> ..and the technical problems with the polling were straightened out
>>>> by the people who run that site.

>>> Evidence, please.

>> The fact that the persons who were tampering with the vote (running up
>> thousands of votes for me and Edwin) apparently could no longer run
>> up the vote to such an extent speaks for itself.

>How would you know whether those people even attempted to tamper with
>the vote after the alleged technical problems were straightened out?

How do you know they didn't? Were you one of them, Dave?

>>>>> And from Eric Bennett:

>>>>> ] The other poll (csma KOTM) was not well protected against vote fraud.
I
>>>>> ] had an amusing evening playing with their vote counting system to see
if I
>>>>> ] could get around their belatedly instituted safeguards (which I did...

>>>> ..and Eric voted for Nathan A. Hughes, not for you, Dave.

>>> Irrelevant, Jason.  It demonstrates that the poll was not protected
>>> against fraud.

>> No vote is completely protected against fraud, Dave.

>Prove it, if you think you can, Jason.  I was in a meeting last night
>in which votes were taken.  Eyes were open and hands were raised.
>Anyone could verify the count.

And could anyone verify that none of the voters had been bribed, Dave?

--
Check out the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ
http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/csmafaq/

muahahahahahahaha!!!snap!snap!!snap!!photoshop!!
  -- Ho You Kong

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: MindSpring Enterprises (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               16-Oct-99 18:35:26
  To: All                                               17-Oct-99 03:47:11
Subj: Reality check

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

I must give Microsoft credit for once - they are trying to do something
RIGHT and fix as many bugs as they can.

People can hoo-hah and laugh and so on, but if you can't acknowledge that
Microsoft finally wants to do more than get a new product out for Chrismas
1999 (if Win2000 did come out in Oct/Nov, I imagine it would sell due to the
"holidays".)

Want a parallel - or at least the roots of a parallel which should have been
made?  I know one company which preferred having a product on the market as
soon as possible rather than clearing up bugs first.  That company is IBM.
As any OS/2 user who read OS/2 Magazine October 1996 issue under the
'Perspectives' column, John W Thompson (the dipshit who ran the OS/2 show)
preferred having a visible product out there in the market than having one
with fewer bugs.  Gee, everybody is pissing on Microsoft (OS/2 users hardly
excepted) because of bugs, and here is IBM doing the same exact identical
thing.  Tsk tsk, why aren't they pissing on their own company?  Don't ask
me, loyalists are just stupid beyond rational thought.

Page 7 has the editorial.  There was *only* one beta ran for Warp 4 and
Thompson, along with IBM, was criticised for releasing OS/2 without doing a
second beta!  Considering how many documented problems existed, a second
beta was definitely needed.  I should know, I beta tested the first time and
counted 50 different issues before giving up in disgust.  Had a nasty time
trying to send the info to IBM as all their methods of internal
communication seemed to have problems.  IBM essentially neglected a second
beta which was something they truly needed to do.  I should dig that article
up and prove once and for all how narrow-minded and unwittingly hypocritical
OS/2 users are (and how dumb IBM is, pardon me for being polite when I refer
to them) by repeating bits of it verbatim...




Matt Templeton <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
>
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,1017660,00.html?chkpt=hqsnewst
est


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             17-Oct-99 04:13:08
  To: All                                               17-Oct-99 03:47:11
Subj: Several points

From: [e-mail] (Andrew J. Brehm)

1. I am back.

2. What do I have to download in order to make OS/2 install disks
support large hard disks (10 GB)?

--
Fan of Woody Allen
User of MacOS, BeOS, LinuxPPC
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     16-Oct-99 22:25:05
  To: All                                               17-Oct-99 03:47:12
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 10-16-99, 11:35:53 PM, "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]> wrote
regarding Reality check:


> I must give Microsoft credit for once - they are trying to do
something
> RIGHT and fix as many bugs as they can.

> People can hoo-hah and laugh and so on, but if you can't acknowledge
that
> Microsoft finally wants to do more than get a new product out for
Chrismas
> 1999 (if Win2000 did come out in Oct/Nov, I imagine it would sell due
to the
> "holidays".)

I give MS credit for consistency.  Even when it's supposed to be down
to weeks, they are totally incapable of estimating (and tracking)
W2K's progress.

> Want a parallel - or at least the roots of a parallel which should
have been
> made?  I know one company which preferred having a product on the
market as
> soon as possible rather than clearing up bugs first.  That company is
IBM.
> As any OS/2 user who read OS/2 Magazine October 1996 issue under the
> 'Perspectives' column, John W Thompson (the dipshit who ran the OS/2
show)
> preferred having a visible product out there in the market than having
one
> with fewer bugs.  Gee, everybody is pissing on Microsoft (OS/2 users
hardly
> excepted) because of bugs, and here is IBM doing the same exact
identical
> thing.  Tsk tsk, why aren't they pissing on their own company?  Don't
ask
> me, loyalists are just stupid beyond rational thought.

A nut case would post negative speculation form 1996 about WARP 4.0
prior to it shipping when history shows WARP 4.0 shipped and was
reliable in release 1.0.

But we also have your baby talk - "pissing on" and "dipshit".

> Page 7 has the editorial.  There was *only* one beta ran for Warp 4
and
> Thompson, along with IBM, was criticised for releasing OS/2 without
doing a
> second beta!

So what?  Not one editorial ran criticizing IBM for shipping a buggy
WARP 4.0 since they did it right with one BETA.  We'll see what is
written about W2K sometime next year.  Ha ha.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                17-Oct-99 03:09:25
  To: All                                               17-Oct-99 05:16:23
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (tholenbot)

In article <7u734m$mkf$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote:

> >> Impossible, given that deja.com does prove that I am correct.
>
> > Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Yet again?  Have you forgotten the last time already?

What alleged "last time", Dave?

> >> That's not the "actual ballot".
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> Feel free to demonstrate how it's allegedly incorrect, if you think
> you can.

Illogical, given that the burden of proof is yours.

> >> Incorrect.
>
> > Taking reading comprehension lessons from Eric Bennett again, Dave?
>
> Obviously not.

On what basis do you make this claim?

> Taking identification lessons from Bob Dole, Eric?

Identification lessons are irrelevant.

--
I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             17-Oct-99 19:23:10
  To: All                                               17-Oct-99 16:35:05
Subj: Re: Several points

From: [e-mail] (Andrew J. Brehm)

Mike Trettel <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 04:13:17 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >1. I am back.
>
> Welcome.  It's like the Hotel California around here.

:-)

> >2. What do I have to download in order to make OS/2 install disks
> >support large hard disks (10 GB)?
>
> I presume you are referring to EIDE drives.  If that's so, download the
> IBM1506.ADD update from the IBM Device Driver site, and apply it to
> copies of your Warp 3/4 install diskettes. There are full instructions
> on how to do so with the update.  If you are using SCSI drives, no
> update is needed.

Thanks.

Somebody already mailed the right file to me. I have yet to reply to his
mail, but I will in time.

Now. This means I will install Warp 4 on my Intel machine again. Haven't
used it for almost a year...

--
Fan of Woody Allen
User of MacOS, BeOS, LinuxPPC
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                    17-Oct-99 17:10:18
  To: All                                               17-Oct-99 19:56:07
Subj: Re: IBM's Marketing Skills

From: [e-mail]

In <3808782a$1$obot$[e-mail]>, on 10/16/99
   at 07:54 AM, Bob Germer <[e-mail]> said:

>My grandfather lamented the demise of Pierce Arrow to the day he died. My
>father never was satisfied with any car he bought after Packard went out
>of business. I still pine for my Studebaker Golden Hawk. My mother still
>missed her Rambler to the day she died last year. All realized that the
>cars which replaced them were superior, but nostalgia is a powerful
>emotion.

>So, stop whining and complaining about IBM not issuing a new version of
>Warp. Stop bitching about lack of support for whizbang game hardware.
>Quit bellyaching about not having the latest version of Poopertosser
>available for OS/2. IBM views the PC as a BUSINESS tool. Through Lotus it
>offers the most powerful suite of BUSINESS tools for both Warp and
>various flavors of Windows.

I read your posts with fascination and they never fail to inform. Thank
you for that. I do try to read them attentively but, in a busy day, I'm
sure to miss some things.

The concern in this newsgroup is for the fate of OS/2, not the fate of
IBM. Obviously they are linked but not reciprocally for, as you say, IBM
can survive the demise of OS/2. I found little in your post to build
confidence about the survival of the latter and the above lines about
nostalgia don't help in that regard.

Oh, I care about IBM alright - I'm a stockholder. But it's OS/2 I'm
worried about.

F.

-----------------------------------------------------------
      Felmon John Davis
     [e-mail]    |  [e-mail]
     Union College /  Schenectady, NY
     - insert standard doxastic disclaimers -
     OS/2 - ma kauft koi katz em sack
-----------------------------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Logical Net (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               17-Oct-99 15:42:09
  To: All                                               17-Oct-99 19:56:07
Subj: Congratulations!

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

Hmmm

<[e-mail]> wrote in message news:7u6j0q$6v$[e-mail]...
> As I was driving home today, I was thinking about all the
> technology that IBM has done that the marketing department has
> really screwed up.  I came up with these 4 examples....
>
> Do any of you out there know of others?
>
> Microchannel  Far ahead of the ISA buss, as well as the EISA
> buss, and only matched today with the PCI Buss.

Not quite.  Microchannel was propriatary (IBM's hilarious attempt to regain
them arket it quickly lost) and required a diskette containing an .adf
controller file to tell the computer what to go do with itself.  If that
diskette dies and you have no backup, you're screwed.  Such a concept is
ridiculous.  Good for the time perhaps, but PCI is still far superior.

> MWave         Really an engineering and software marvel. Actead
> as a sound card, and a Modeom at 33600

If that's true, then Windows is a blessing for all.  I have two responses to
your claim:

1.  Mwave started originally at 28800 baud.  Became 33600 baud later,
provided that you sacrificed certain things when connected at that speed.

2.  Mwave requires a ton of files on the hard drive.  Windows was invented
with the same principle, software being easier to update than hardware.
Ignore the fact IBM never bothered to properly support its "superior"
technology (even when it really was superior).  Mwave would have been
altered and perverted by others wanting their own code to be involved.

> Token Ring Lan Adapter  Only today with switching hubs can
> Ethernet match what Token ring did 10 years ago!

Token ring 16 is purportedly faster than ethernet 100 on the same cable type
(cat 5) because it makes better use of the bandwidth.  But the fact that
many firms are switching from token ring to ethernet (including my county
government offices) must suggest something about token ring which is crap.

> OS/2.         Far ahead of Windows even today.

Uh-huh.    We'll throw out the system input queue OS/2 is trapped with since
that's too easy of a target.  OS/2's far ahead of windows, but only if you
have hardware which won't act goofy when run by OS/2 (yet works perfectly
under Linux, windows, BeOS, whatever).  Video cards come instantly to mind,
I went through 8 video cards trying to find something that worked perfectly
with OS/2.  Matrox millenium/II was the best, but I had to waddle through
several brands and dealing with really quirky screen corruption and
misplaced/distorted icon problems.  I'm glad it's behind me now.

And in 1995 I do quite remember talking to IBM tech support, who told me
that ethernet LAN cards couldn't use port 300 irq 9 under OS/2 but never
explained why...  a computer running it was locking/freezing up at peculiar
times when relating to the network...

> How long will it take Gerstner to realise that IBM's technical
> prowess is second to none?

Yo!!  This is IBM!!!  Stay with me here:  They made the PC in 1980 - with
generic parts and a CPU which many critics said was "brain damaged" in terms
of how the CPU interacted with memory and address addressing!  Back to the
point, IBM saw that the microcomputer might challenge their own midrange
monopoly and since IBM had a name to back itself up on, released a piece of
shit and called it 'advanced'.  And, as IBM predicted, people bought it
because of the name.  And yet you piddle arguements against Microsoft who is
doing exactly what IBM had done in the past... sheesh.

That's the intel 8088, by the way, being that crap CPU IBM used.  Motorola's
CPU line was far advanced and far better designed than any intel chip.  The
80386 (circa 1983) alone had features which the Motorola 68000 had since
1977!!!!!  So you go learn how to study and then convince me how IBM is
supposed to be better.  (I also have an acquaintance of sorts who worked for
Unisys - and told me outright that the AS/400 is junk compared to their
midrange line.)

>  The IBM marketing dept has screwed
> up more times than any other company in any industry.

They deserve to be out of business and a long time ago, too.

>  It is
> only the inertia of such a large company that they can continue,
> blind to the fact that they cannot market their way out of a wet
> paper bag!  Now IBM is considering slicing off all desktop PC
> production to Dell and Acer.....

Yeah, IBM has lost great loads of money on the PCs.  Coincidentially they
are now saying "Avoid the PC, go NC."  What a load...

>  however it is not the hardware
> division of IBM that is at fault but rather the marketing dept.

It took you *how long* to figure this common knowledge out?  (sorry, unlike
you I've been free of blind os/2 fanaticism since mid-1997 and free of os/2
since early-1998.)

> In a few years IBM will be strictly a service company and no
> longer an innovative computer company.  Has anyone ever sent a
> message like this to Gerstner?

You know, if you check historical logs back to the early 1950s, IBM had sold
a vacuum-tube computer.  It was generic shit, too - but IBM made it big
because they hyped up support and how IBM would be there.  My how things
change and my how the mightly have fallen (because of getting high on their
own power and success.  Don't worry, MS will fail too.)

> No other company in the computer business has blown the
> marketing sooo badly.  Surely this must be on the minds of a few
> IBMers?

Anti-IBMers, yes.  Most IBMers are too busy praising IBM for making such
so-called 'great' products which they think will sell themselves!  Duh!

>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               17-Oct-99 15:25:02
  To: All                                               17-Oct-99 19:56:07
Subj: Re: Hey Mr. WarpCity...

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

Good grief.

Well, I do hope he gets better.  (we may have our spats, but he is a human
being and at some point or another we all deserve equal respect.)

David T. Johnson <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Howdy Tim! Warpstock is this Saturday, and I've still got that $50 that
> > says you won't be there. Feel free to prove me wrong!
> >
> > See you there everybody!
> >
> Tim has been seriously injured in an accident.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               17-Oct-99 15:46:27
  To: All                                               17-Oct-99 19:56:07
Subj: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

Stop blabbing every potential RUMOR and wait for something to ACTUALLY come
onto the market.

Then we can praise IBM for still supporting OS/2, okay?

Meanwhile, you've got some people of high rank (Brad W for example) asying
there will be no client, and a bunvch of nobodys by comparison saying "Yo,
IBM is setting up a team of developers..."

Sorry, but Brad's got some weight.

If or when OS/2 v5 comes out (you know IBM won't pay Paramount for use of
the word 'warp', which is something paramount apparently wanted a year or so
ago for no rational reason) then you can gloat and spread the word to every
windows or linux newsgroup (avoid the apple people, they're meatheads
through and through) and proclaim dominance because IBM still supports you.
(when they really aren't supporting you as much as getting more money out of
you.)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   18-Oct-99 06:37:00
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 02:24:12
Subj: Re: IBM re-evaluating consumer PC business

From: [e-mail] (R Thomas)

>>From what I have heard, W2K will not support Win 3.1 or DOS
>>applications. Certainly NT 4.x doesn't.

Rubbish.
I am running 3.1 and dos apps and win95 apps on both NT 4 and on
2000server.
----------------------------------
Keep two truths in your pocket and take them out according to the need of the
moment.
Let one be: " For my sake was the world created".
And the other: " I am dust and ashes".
Chasidic, 18th Century

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: none (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   17-Oct-99 14:08:17
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 02:24:12
Subj: Re: Several points

From: [e-mail] (Mike Trettel)

On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 04:13:17 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm <[e-mail]>
wrote:
>1. I am back.

Welcome.  It's like the Hotel California around here.

>
>2. What do I have to download in order to make OS/2 install disks
>support large hard disks (10 GB)?

I presume you are referring to EIDE drives.  If that's so, download the
IBM1506.ADD update from the IBM Device Driver site, and apply it to
copies of your Warp 3/4 install diskettes. There are full instructions
on how to do so with the update.  If you are using SCSI drives, no
update is needed.

>
>--
>Fan of Woody Allen
>User of MacOS, BeOS, LinuxPPC
>Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza


--
===========
Mike Trettel    trettel (Shift 2) fred (dinky little round thing) net

I don't buy from spammers.  No exceptions.  Fix the reply line to mail me.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           17-Oct-99 06:42:20
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 02:24:12
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7ub246$[e-mail]>, on 10/16/99 at 06:35 PM,
   "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]> said:

> I must give Microsoft credit for once - they are trying to do something
> RIGHT and fix as many bugs as they can.

Only a true lemming or an absolutely mentally retarded moron would make
such a statement. I reported at least 8 reproduceable bugs in Windows 95,
OSR1 which still exist in OSRb.

I have reported directly to MicroSoft serveral reproducable problems with
Win 98 as released and which still exist after applying all available
updates and fixpacks. They also exist in Windows 98, Second Edition.

So which are you, a lemming or a mentally retarded moron? Those are the
only choices for anyone who makes such a totally idiotic statement.


> Want a parallel - or at least the roots of a parallel which should have
> been made?  I know one company which preferred having a product on the
> market as soon as possible rather than clearing up bugs first.  That
> company is IBM. As any OS/2 user who read OS/2 Magazine October 1996
> issue under the 'Perspectives' column, John W Thompson (the dipshit who
> ran the OS/2 show) preferred having a visible product out there in the
> market than having one with fewer bugs.  Gee, everybody is pissing on
> Microsoft (OS/2 users hardly excepted) because of bugs, and here is IBM
> doing the same exact identical thing.  Tsk tsk, why aren't they pissing
> on their own company?  Don't ask me, loyalists are just stupid beyond
> rational thought.

You are not only either a lemming or a mentally retarded moron, you are
either a lying lemming or a lying mentally retarded moron. Not only that
you are guilty of slander.

First of all, John Thompson is not a dipshit.
Secondly, I was able to run Warp 4.0 as released with no fixpacks until I
updated my hardware with items not invented when Warp was released. I am
still running that way on my Domino Server which hasn't been rebooted in
over a year.

> Page 7 has the editorial.  There was *only* one beta ran for Warp 4 and
> Thompson, along with IBM, was criticised for releasing OS/2 without
> doing a second beta!

Only by jealous MicroSoft lemmings.

>Considering how many documented problems existed,
> a second beta was definitely needed.  I should know, I beta tested the
> first time and counted 50 different issues before giving up in disgust.

I seriously doubt you are capable of even installing DOS much less a beta.
Since I have demonstrated that you are both a liar and either a lemming or
a mentally retarded moron, you statements are garbage here.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Matt Templeton is a lying lemming with an IQ of 4 at most
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     17-Oct-99 16:04:13
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 03:19:21
Subj: Re: A new client? Here's an idea:

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 10-17-99, 8:46:55 PM, "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]> wrote
regarding A new client? Here's an idea::


> Stop blabbing every potential RUMOR and wait for something to ACTUALLY
come
> onto the market.

> Then we can praise IBM for still supporting OS/2, okay?

New releases isn't support.  Sony supports the popular playstation and
the playstation has not changed since 1994.



> Meanwhile, you've got some people of high rank (Brad W for example)
saying
> there will be no client, and a bunch of nobodys by comparison saying
"Yo,
> IBM is setting up a team of developers..."

> Sorry, but Brad's got some weight.

> If or when OS/2 v5 comes out

I doubt WARP V 5.0 will ever come out.  MS is even killing off it's PC
OS development in exchange for more reliable devices running WinCE.
Windows2000 is probably the last significant PC OS from MS.

MS Windows95 has not and will not see any update for probably ever!
Windows98 is a modest collection of preexisting fixpack/utilities
released as a new edition. The once huge upgrade called Millennium was
due in 2000-01 BUT all current news says Millennium is also an
insignificant fixpack and utility release for Windows98!!

MS WebTV and WinCE for the Dreamcast is where MS is most active.  I
think MS has 75+ titles porting to the astonishingly popular SEGA
DreamCast.  That would make the Dreamcast their top priority.

I don't see much difference between what MS and IBM are doing - just
big differences in what they are saying - one says the PC is dead and
the other says it is the future.  Neither is right but certainly if we
look at development, OS/2 and Windows95/98 are on hold.

Unless Windows2000 is a consumer OS - it is not - MS is now abandoning
the PC while telling it's customers otherwise.  Smart.  Make $ while
they move off Wintel and onto consoles and other IT devices.




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            17-Oct-99 20:41:27
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 03:19:22
Subj: (1/3) Re: Time to move on

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>> Dos and Windows 9x have little or no security and have been heartily
embraced.
>> OS/2 has no security, but according to some, it has a halfway corporation
>> presence.

>They are deployed for desktop software where security is unimportant.
>Are you saying Linux could be gainfully employed on the business
>desktop?

I know of one telecom company that is switching from Win32 to Linux/Java. The
only reason I think that this is not wise is because the last I heard, Linux
had a slow JVM. This may have changed. Regardless, my point(if I remember) is
that support is more important than security to quite a few companies.

>> >> Since OS/2 users are within the domain of computer uses, either will
suffice.
>>
>> >>A square is a type of rectangle, but do all rectangles have equal length
>> >>sides?  What applies to the subset does not necessarily apply to the
>> >>superset.
>>
>> A droplet is not a river but both are still wet. Are do you feel that there
are
>> some OS/2 users that ARE NOT computer users?

>A square is not a rectangle, but both have 4 sides.  That doesn't change
>the fact that a square is a specific kind of rectangle and an OS/2 user
>is a specific kind of computer user.

But that still means that an OS/2 users is a computer user. Do you know of any

OS/2 users who are NOT computer users?

>> Your choice. It is the right of every man to be wrong(and stubborn) despite
>> overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

>That should cover your thoughts.  >;-)

Except that I am right and you, my friend, are not. <g>

>> Of course, you also think an unsecure, support operating system cannot
>> make corporate headway despite the existence of DOS and Win9x.

>No, I think Linux cannot.

Well, it's coming up in conversation quite a bit, but again, my point was that

support is the most important feature to most corporations.

>> >She is the stereotypical person who "needs" things because they are
>> >newer.  She has no concept of what is faster or what that number means,
>> >but she knows that if the number is higher, it must be better and she
>> >needs it.
>>
>> You don't like to answer questions. Did you ask her why? Did you TRY to
explain
>> or did you just tell her in a condescending manner> My in-law was
absolutely
>> computer illiterate, yet had no problems making a decision. I'll bet your
>> mother could do the same.

>With the patience of several saints, I tried explaining to her the
>benefits and drawbacks of several possibilities (not one of which was an
>OS/2 system, I might add).  She failed to comprehend and all that was
>left was her preconceived notions and propaganda she had heard.  To put
>things in perspective, she also has a large fear of the year 2000.  Is
>there a -phobia word for that yet?  There should be.  Milleniphobia just
>doesn't flow too well.

<Shrug>.  Ah well...surrender is good too. :-)

>> I wonder. I've yet to run into any computer illiterate person who couldn't
make
>> a wise decision based on a good explanation.  EVERY person who was a
computer
>> newbie who asked my advice took my advice 100% of the time. I asked a
couple of
>> friends and they had the same hit ratio.
>> Now, why would a mother ignore the advice of her son let alone someone more
>> knowledgable than herself and presumably, someone she trusts?

>That's a personal issue, but is precisely the case.

Didn't mean to pry. I asked my mother-in-law, who was visiting when I was
typing this and she mentioned that. Ah well, I STILL can't get my mother to
use
a computer.

>> I suspect that your advice was ignored for reasons other than your mother's
>> "cluelessness".  Perhaps you noticed that you were using OS/2 decided your
>> advice was...questionable? :-)

>Well she always hears how I leave my computer on all the time and don't
>reboot.  That must have turned her off to the whole thing.

Indeed. After all, one must reboot to install new hardware and considering how

difficult that is for OS/2, people usually run screaming into the night.

>> Okay.  I wonder how many people anticipated the Internet or this IT job
market?

>Anyone that had prior interest in such topics probably could have seen
>it coming.

I don't agree. It caught way too many people off-guard.

>> >> No reboot required.
>>
>> >So if you had no OpenGL installed on your system and needed to install
>> >it, you wouldn't have to reboot your system?  :-)
>>
>> Installs with the driver! :-)

>Right, so in order to meet my precondition for having "no OpenGL
>installed on your system" you'd have to start from the VGA driver, hence
>you'd have to reboot to install it.

Only if you consider rebooting to use another OS the same as rebooting to
install new hardware. But let's do so. I would do this once, when the hardware

is installed. You would do so whenever the need for OpenGL arose.

Not efficient, but very OS/2-like.

>> >Right.  And if I gave a rat's ass about hardware OpenGL, I'd view this
>> >as very annoying.  However I don't.
>>
>> Fine. This was just one example to show an overall problem.

>It's only a problem for those who want to use such things, and they
>should have had the sense not to use the wrong tool for their job in the
>first place.

Or made the mistake of believing that OS/2 could keep up with the changing
times. I agree with you though, if one were to believe such a thing about
OS/2,
perhaps good sense has left the building. :-)

>> >Not really.  Using OS/2 is not analogous to loosing your freedom.  It's
>> >like using an old trusted powerful truck for a towing job instead of
>> >using a shiny new sport ute with a CD player.  Sure it's nice to be able
>> >to play CDs, but if you've got to tow a load up a hill, the CD player
>> >isn't all that useful.
>>
>> Indeed. But the truck that can tow that load and play that CD is even
better,
>> isn't it?

>Sure, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.  There are always
>tradeoffs.

But you can. That's my point.

>> >Again, if I wanted to use it, I'd reboot.  I don't, hence I don't.  The
>> >only thing I didn't have a choice in is whether or not the piece of
>> >hardware had the feature that I didn't want.
>>
>> And you feel that rebooting to use a single features is more efficient than
>> using the tool that gives you all under a single umbrella?

>For me, booting to win is a tradeoff.  I'm giving up my favorite
>applications, my comfortable user interface, and a good deal of pep the
>way my system is configured (pep being a subjective evaluation of
>responsiveness).

Of course. I felt the same way, until I tried NT. What I found was that even
my
favorites had capable and in many cases superior counterparts because the apps

were being improved. The WPS was missed, but this was shortlived. I have to
say, for me, Windows has better pep, but this is subjective.

>> >To me they are gingerbread.
>>
>> Again, it is your right to go into a car dealership and tell someone that
the
>> AC is optional no matter how many times they tell you that it is standard.
It
>> doesn't make you right. Just difficult.

>I'm not saying it's optional or gingerbread for everyone.  I'm saying it
>is for me.

Not even for you. I say this because it is a standard feature of the card.

>> But yet, they are features that CAN be used. What you consider necessary
isn't
>> relevent in this context. What is relevent is that you are forced to pay
for
>> features you CANNOT use.

>I can use them if I want to reboot.  What I consider necessary is very
>relevant to the context of my statement:  If I want it for the higher
>clock speed and nothing else, everything else is extraneous.

You can use them if you reboot. You are right. However, since you run your
machine for so long, do you not find this annoying?

>> >> >> These are basic features of the card. Basic. And Scitech
>> >> >> doesn't support them.
>> >>
>> >> >It will.
>> >>
>> >> First, you have no evidence of this, so that statement is both useless
and
>> >> worthless.
>>
>> >Umm... yes I do.  Deja News.
>>
>> Well, let's see it.

>Here's a good one, straight from the horse's mouth, posted directly to
>this newsgroup, no less:

>http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=451059199&CONTEXT=939953176.408551516&hitnum=
3

Well, they mentioned MGL, but the part about TNT or 3dfx support is not
present. Also, from http://www.scitechsoft.com/dp_feat.html, the feature list
of MGL.

SciTech MGL 4.05 Features

Performance
OpenGL API hardware & software support (Microsoft OpenGL, SGI OpenGL, & Mesa)

SciTech Game Framework (with source) for creating commercial-quality games

Sprite Library for hardware and software sprite management

Support for hardware triple buffering

Support for stereo LCD shutter glasses (requires hardware stereo support)

Sample programs for MGL and OpenGL features

Highly optimized 32-bit assembler rasterization for maximum speed

Full hardware and software double/multi-buffering support

Hardware scrolling/panning surfaces

Rendering direct to video memory, off-screen video memory and to system memory

buffers

Full linear surface virtualization under DOS and Windows

Real-time 8-bit dithering

Portability
Created C only version for portability

DJGPP 2.01 support updated with new OBJ20BFD conversion utility

Write code once for painless, multi-platform releases

Support for development under DOS or Windows 3.1/95/NT

Supports standard C/C++ and Borland Delphi compilers

Flexibility
Support for DirectDraw acceleration functions

Support for VESA VBE/Core 3.0 and VESA VBE/AF 2.0 draft standards

Resolutions from 320x200 to 1600x1200

Color depths from 4 bits to 32 bits per pixel

Automatic detection and utilization of VGA, ModeX, VESA VBE 1.2/2.0/3.0, VESA
VBE/AF (Accelerator Functions), WinG and DirectX

Supports hardware acceleration with VESA VBE/AF or DirectX

Direct surface access to bypass SciTech MGL functions

C++ wrapper class API

2D and 3D Graphics Output

Lines, rectangles, ellipses, elliptical arcs and text

Monochrome bitmaps

Complex regions (including union, difference, intersection, etc.)

BitBlt, TransBlt (source and destination transparency), StretchBlt

Flat triangles/quads, Smooth triangles/quads, Zbuffered triangles/quads

Event Handling

Support for double buffered mouse cursors

Unified event queue handling mechanism for DOS and Windows

Keyboard and mouse events

User specified timer events

Fonts and Resource Loading

JPEG bitmap file loading

Bitmap Fonts

Scalable Vector Fonts

Loading of Windows bitmaps, fonts, cursors and icons

PCX bitmap loading

Windowed Support

CreateDIBSection under Windows 95/NT

WinG under Windows 3.1

Full Screen Graphics

Full screen MGL port of GLUT OpenGL Utility Library

Support for drawing to full screen WinDirect surfaces with GDI

Automatically disables AutoPlay while in full screen modes on Windows 95/NT

Low-resolution graphics modes for fast software 3D and digital video

Full screen graphics under Windows 3.1/95 using WinDirect

Full screen graphics under Windows 95/NT using DirectX


*************************************************************

Now, I don't know about you, but I see NO OS/2 ANYTHING. Do you still wish to
use MGL as your example of OS/2 support?


>> >> Second, you contradict earlier statements. If 3d features are basic,
>> >> but considered "gingerbread" and [un]important to many OS/2 users, why
on Earth
>> >> would Scitech waste time implemented features that are consider useless
by so
>> >> many?
>>
>> >Because their drivers aren't just OS/2 drivers.  They have the same
>> >codebase for <all> of their drivers for <all> platforms.
>>
>> Without looking at a line of their code I can guarantee you that if they
>> support those advance features, they will not be the same codebase.

>The interfaces to the operating systems are obviously OS specific, but
>the driving code is in fact, the same.  All OS's have to be able to
>change video hardware registers and manipulate video memory.  How that
>is done is specific to the OS.  However, telling a card to draw a
>polygon or change into a given graphics mode can be done from a common
>code base.  This is what is known as "abstraction."  The low-level
>interface to OS/2 is almost completely ironed out without the need to
>touch the higher level code.

I know what abstraction is. I also know that all the abstraction in the world
will not give their code the ability to support things that in native to
Windows. There is a sizable difference between supportind 2d and 3d functions,

let alone features like dynamic resolutions changes.

>> That is not possible.

>Incorrect.  It has already been done.

It is you who is incorrect. The only thing I see are tools that are weighted
heavily towards Windows. You have yet to provide any proof that their drivers
support all the advanced features of these cards equally across all platforms.

I've give you two cases where GLDirect and now MGL where their are features
listed that OS/2 doesn't appear to support despite your contentions of parity.

Can you counter these examples?

>> Either they will bring all their other drivers down to
>> the lowest common denominator, all they will be forced to have different
code
>> for the myriad of advanced features that OS/2 doesn't support.

>All video cards have similar access through whichever bus they use.  As
>long as the OS can write to port and registers and memory addresses
>(which any OS can) full support is possible for anything.

And yet in every single case, OS/2 drivers do less than their Windows
counterparts. How do you explain this?

>> >> >> I find it difficult to be impressed with their software
>> >> >> doesn't support the basic features of these new cards.
>> >>
>> >> >They're making great strides, but it will take time.  They also
>> >> >mentioned plans for universal sound drivers.
>> >>
>> >> Great strides don't matter. Plans don't matter. We don't deal in
vaporware
>> >> remember? Only what we can use here and now. Here and now, such support
doesn't
>> >> exist and universal sound drivers don't exist.
>>
>> >So if future developments don't matter, why try to "future-proof" your
>> >system?
>>
>> Because in the hear and now, I may want to use something in the future that
I
>> don't use today. It can already exist and not be installed on my machine.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            17-Oct-99 20:41:27
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 03:19:22
Subj: (2/3) Re: Time to move on

>"Great strides don't matter. Plans don't matter. We don't deal in
>vaporware remember?"

You quote me without understanding what my words mean.
Don't do that.

There is a bevy of software and hardware that exists TODAY that I may wish to
use in the future.  My comment that you so erroneously quoted deals with so-
called future develpment. You mentioned great strides when talking about
Scitech. Those strides do matter because the need is here today. You think
that
some will say, "Wow! In two years, Scitech will have TNT support, so I'll
wait." Nope, won't happen. "Here and now."

But someone can say, I'll buy a computer and use and OS that has applications
TODAY that can do "X", but I'll buy such software in a couple of months when I

have the money.

Get the difference?


>> >> No good. The Voodoo has been unchanged for almost 3 years,
>>
>> >And hasn't released their specs to Scitech in this time either.
>>
>> Then Scitech is pretty useless unless you wish to use two year old cards or
the
>> S4.

>Many OS/2 users fall into a category such that Scitech is in fact,
>useful.  So many, in fact, that IBM licensed SDD for OS/2.

I never said that OS/2 didn't excel at support old technology.

>> >> the TnT for more than a year. And STILL no support.
>>
>> >I think some forms of the TnT are supported by something in OS/2.  I
>> >don't know because I don't own the card.
>>
>> You would be refering to Nvidia's Gradd drivers. These are the same ones
that
>> force OS/2 users to run at 640x480 and 60mhz.

>So other alternatives can be sought that don't have this limitation.

There are none, and that is the problem. If you want such a card, and are
using
OS/2, you are out of luck.

>> >> What proof do you have that they are even working on such support?
>>
>> >It's in their own best interests to do so.  People have also made
>> >requests on news.scitechsoft.com and gotten positive responses about
>> >future planned drivers.
>>
>> How do you figure? With hoards of people like yourself(no offense) who
don't
>> plan on using any new cards, how is it in their best interest to support
them?

>It is their product which they have invested countless man-hours in.
>They are simply protecting their investment.

How is spending money to develop features no want wants, according to you,
protecting their investments? You will have to explain that one.

>> >> >> Most people don't care if a 5
>> >> >> year old Tseng card is supported.
>> >>
>> >> >Most people that don't have such cards, sure.  Many people do have 1 or
>> >> >2 year old cards which are supported, however.
>> >>
>> >> And many people have 1 to 2 year old cards that are not.
>>
>> >Such as?
>>
>> Maybe the millions of people who've purchased new machines less than one
year
>> ago.

>How would they wind up with 1 or 2 year old cards, specifically ones
>which are not supported by OS/2 or SDD?

3dfx, TnT, Matrox are cards that fall in that 1 to 2 year slot that are not
listed in Scitech's list.

>> >From the MGL source code tree:
>> >[deleted]
>>
>> And what exactly does that have to do with the fact that SciTech doesn't
have
>> an OS/2 version of GLDirect dispite your proclaimations of once and future
OS/2
>> support?

>GLDirect is a Win32 specific interface.  OpenGL is a multiplatform
>interface which I have shown it does support and implement.

GLDirect is a product that is used to give OpenGL support to cards that lack
such support. Inever said that OS/2 didn't support OpenGL. I know better. What

I did say is that Scitech has a product with no OS/2 equivalent. This product
has been around for some time, yet they haven't seen fit to develop something
similar for OS/2. You speak of Scitech's commitment to OS/2. I question it
based on their existing products which have no OS/2 versions.

>> >Read Warpcast and tell me that nothing has happened on the OS/2
>> >development front.  Every 3 days or so, there a new version of
>> >such-and-such being released, ported, or updated.  That's my barometer.
>>
>> I've read Warpcast. Now, we've gone from EDM/2 making a comeback to
irrelevent.
>> Interesting. And your statement still doesn't address what I said about
OS/2
>> development, namely that it is falling off.

>How does Warpcast not refute your claim that OS/2 development is falling
>off?

Because the products that are coming out do not match the number or complexity

of products released in the past. OS/2 used to have Embellish, Colorworks, and

TrueSpectra, for example. Where are they now?
Or Describe? Clearlook? Skyscraper? Watcom? Intercom? Heck, check out previous

issues of OS/2 e-Zine and see how much is still around.

>> Amiga has some developers, but no one believes that it is a hotbed of
software
>> development. In OS/2, there just isn't much happening on the development
front.

>Again I defer to Warpcast.

I've address that.

>> > >> Makes for a bleak programming experience.
>> >>
>> >> >Well, it takes a certain "frontiersman" feel to it.  ;-)
>> >>
>> >> I suppose. I guess that I would rather make good software that people
enjoy
>> >> using, than showing my stones in masochistic programming displays.<grin>
>>
>> >You can do both in OS/2.
>>
>> You HAVE to in OS/2. And all the while, programming advancements will pass
you
>> by.

>Coding for OS/2 is not any more difficult than coding for win32 for most
>tasks.

Certainly, for most simple tasks, but try complex tasks.

>> >> >It has had a long dead period where people were using it, but no big
>> >> >contributions occurred.  That is no longer the case however.  Whether
or
>> >> >not the initial damage done was enough to finish it off remains to be
>> >> >seen, but it has had a late rally of sorts.
>> >>
>> >> The thing came out *monthly* and I read it *monthly*. What long dead
periods?
>>
>> >I'm referring to the OS/2 scene in general.
>>
>> Well, what rally?

>Again I defer to Warpcast.

Indeed, which is why I ask "What rally"? I see more stuff going out than
coming
in? For example, what has Warpcast said will occur to cover the loss Innoval
and Stardock?

>> I'm not disputing that. It just seems that we don't know what it means.

>This doesn't seem like a large amount of interest for such a narrow
>subject to you?

Depends on how we want to read the numbers. I'm going to stay away from this
one, so I don't risk offending you. This is, after all, your baby.

>> >> I installed SP3 because when I first tried NT, SP3 was declared a
necessity
>> >> based on my research. I installed SP4 for Y2k, switch to Win2k, but I
keep an
>> >> NT 4 maint. partition with SP5 for NTFS5 read/write capability.
>> >
>> >> Unworkable? No. Nor did I claim such. I did claim that you are still
dependent
>> >> on IBM and I on MS.
>>
>> >For the last time:  If I don't touch another piece of hardware or change
>> >my system at all, how am I dependent on IBM?  Explain that to me.
>>
>> I don't think you are being realistic, that is how. I think that you will
do
>> something.

>You must be an astrologer too, just like the other dave in this group.
>;-)

Please!! <G> I'm just going by your fixpack track record.

> BTW, can OS/2 use DirectCD?

>That's like asking, can WinNT use SOM?  How about DIVE or DART?  It's
>specific to the given platform.

It would be more like asking if OS/2 or NT supported OpenGL, I think. It's
practically a standard for many of the CDRs that I've seen.

>> >> >Then you'd better turn yourself around.
>> >>
>> >> Whatever for? That would only give me a view of OS/2.
>>
>> >Better than staring at the horse's ass like you are now.  ;-)
>>
>> I'd rather view a live horse's ass than beat a dead horse. Like you. :-)

>I'm no dead horse!  :-P  (and you're not beating me)

I meant you are beating a dead horse, in this case OS/2. Ah well, if I had to
explain it, that means my statement fell flat.
Doh!

>> Well, my mistake for one. That "486 than can" should be "486 that CANNOT".
>> Also, my point is that people in this group seem to feel that using OS/2
proves
>> they are knowledgable and using Windows proves someone else is not. My
point is
>> that smart people choose fast machines and Windows and deny OS/2.

>Smart people also choose fast machines and OS/2.  Smart people also
>choose slow machines and OS/2.  Not so sure if smart people choose slow
>machines and winxx... ;-)

Depends. Win9x on a 486 was suprisingly fast. I was shocked, but pleased, it
gave my in-law a good machine.

>> >Personally I'd prefer not to take a speed hit for the sake of
>> >undoubtedly paltry encryption.  Also, I imagine it would make file
>> >recovery quite a bit more difficult.
>>
>> First, I've got a fast machine, so a small speed hit is irrelevent.

>I'm not so tolerant of inefficiency.

How so? You are the guy who would reboot just to use a single program. That is

far less efficient than any speed hit that you cannot see.

>> Second, like compression, you can encrypt individual files or folders. For
>> example, you can easily make a directory and an files in it would be
encrypted.
>> No need to encrypt programs, just your data.

>So just your data might be difficult to recover and be slower to access.

I don't believe that I said that. And again, I don't think you (or anyone)
would be quick enough to notice the difference. Certainly on my machine, I can

guarantee that you won't. Of course, I have a fast machine. Since you like
older, slower hardware, YMMV.

>> Third, since you don't know that the encryption is paltry, why make such a
>> comment? Why not instead, make one that you can back up?

>Because I've seen first-hand how paltry their front-door security is.  I
>had a PIII crack a 24 character long administrator password in a lab at
>school as part of an experiment.  It did so with a commonly available
>program using brute-force techniques (no dictionaries were employed),
>and common standard user-level access.  It came up with the password in
>under 4 hours.  That's pretty paltry IMHO.

The only thing that means is that your admin picked a bad password. Also, was
this machine using the 128 bit password protection?
Regardless, it takes some stones to berate Windows NT, when OS/2 has no
passwords(or security for that matter)of which to speak. It took you 4 hours
to
get the admin password for NT. Under OS/2, in four hours, I would have had
your
data, emailed the president, erased your machine, took a nap, read a book, and

still returned home in time for corn flakes.

Twice.

>> >Do they need it or want it?  Last time I looked, my gas company, etc.
>> >still accepted physical checks.
>>
>> You seem to feel that people can't make decisions.

>Incorrect.  You seem to feel that alternatives are inferior.

Incorrect. I feel that alternatives that do less are inferior.

>> All of my static payments go out electronically with no intervention on my
>> part. This saves time and effort and makes tracking payments easier. Time
>> is money. Some companies even give you a discount for electronic payments.
>> Again, however, you show that OS/2 user characteristic of condemning what
>> you don't have and "attacking" your fellows that do want such a feature.

>Where is my condemnation or attack?  I asked if it was needed or
>desired?  It is not needed, since there are alternatives available.  It
>is desired by some.

You keep saying that without walking a mile in their mochasins. How do you
know
what a person needs?

>> >> Indeed. The Windows ones now allow NT to assign drive letters and brings
NT up
>> >> to the level of 95/98 support. On the other hand, the last time OS/2
drivers
>> >> came out was last July and they still lack the features I mentioned, not
to
>> >> mention the new ones I just listed.
>>
>> >Zip disks in OS/2 can be formatted HPFS and can have protection bits
>> >associated with the filesystem.  Drive letters can be reserved in OS/2
>> >to move the Zip drive wherever you want it.
>>
>> First, HPFS Zip drive support on the PP version is iffy at best.

>In what way(s)?

In that it doesn't always work.

>> Second, protection bits is not even in the same universe as a disk that can

>> have read/write/password protection. I cannot believe that you would even
offer
>> that as a substitute.

>My misconception.  What are "protection bits"?

I thought that you were talking about the read/write flag that one can set
with
attrib or chmod. That is for a single file. read/write/password is for the
disk.

>> Third, under OS/2, the zip drive takes the next available, lowest available

>> drive letter. What this means is that the zip drive will change if you
change
>> partitions. Under Windows, I made my CDROM Z: and my ZipDrive Y. No matter
>> what, they don't change.
>>
>> You cannot do this under OS/2.

>I don't swap around partitions too often, so I'm not sensitized to these
>issues.

I don't either, but when it happened, it was a pain.

>My only opinion of drive handling and MS operating systems is
>one that leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth, since DOS, NT, and
>Win9x actually have 3 <completely different> concepts of how my drive
>letters should be mapped.  What is C: in DOS is D: in NT.  What is C: in
>95 is E: in DOS and F: in NT.  And so forth.  I don't know how I managed
>to do such a thing, but I was less than impressed with the consistency.
>This also made installation extremely difficult using a DOS-based
>install.

Explain. In the case of 9x and NTThe seem to work the same to me.

>> >Then the alternative is to get a faster performing SCSI scanner.
>>
>> Not an alternative to people who want cheaper PP and don't have SCSI cards.
>> You, the "take my hand-me-down 486" want people do drop $100 on a SCSI
card,
>> $250 on a SCSI scanner instead of spending $70 on a PP scanner?

>Right tool for the right job.  Whatever that means to whomever.

Right tool for the right job should mean take whatever you can get. It should
mean that you have many options and can choose the best one for you.

>> >What kind of version do you want, PM, command line, or X11?  Take your
>> >pick.  I prefer the command line one myself.
>>
>> I suspect that someone making animated gifs wouldn't want to do so on the
>> command-line.

>Then PM or X11?  I found it was quite easy to batch-process the GIFs
>using the command line version for my application.

What is the PM one? I think that asking someone to install the entire X11
subsystem is ludacrous.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            17-Oct-99 20:41:27
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 03:19:22
Subj: (3/3) Re: Time to move on

>> >Wouldn't know.  I don't pay too much attention to things I don't care
>> >about.  I remember hearing something mentioned.
>>
>> Of course. Let me help. The answer would be no.

>There are commercial CD rippers available for OS/2 which are fairly
>full-featured.  Neither of us is qualified to compared the features of
>both products since neither of us has used both products.  This seems to
>be part of your, "if it exists for win32, then any other equivalent apps
>on other platforms must be inferior" attitude.

No, I am saying that there are NO CD RIPPERS FOR OS/2 LIKE REALJUKEBOX OR
MUSICMATCH. NONE. NADA. NOTHING.
NOTHING.

Okay?

>> >There are simple methods that can be employed to detect and insure
>> >against memory leaks.  Memory overwrites are taken care of quite well
>> >with GPFs.
>>
>> Simple methods sometimes provide simple results.

>Simple results are often correct results.

And are just as often incorrect.

>> Purify is an Unix and Windows standard, but I understand how OS/2 forces
>> one to make do.

>Yes, working in OS/2 does tend to make one write better code.  Must be
>an osmosis effect from working with a well structured, well designed
>system.

Working with OS/2 would certainly tend to make one take longer to write better

code than it would take to write better code under Windows. Must be from the
lack of current development applications.  I guess that's why Windows has the
desktop and Unix the servers.

>> >> >> OpenGL?
>> >>
>> >> >What about it?
>> >>
>> >> Hardware support.
>>
>> >On the way.  Software support is already there.
>>
>> "On the way". That would be NO.

>That would be a "NO" for now and a "YES" for later.

That would be a "NO" for now and a "MAYBE" for later since nothing exists
today.

>> >> >> Sorry, but it is definitely the inability of the platform.
>> >>
>> >> >>Hey... it's not for everyone.  I never said it was.
>> >>
>> >> Then whom, by george, is it for?
>>
>> >People who aren't name David McCoy, among others.
>>
>> Indeed, people who want the widest array of software and hardware possible.

>And the point being?

If you want the widest array of software and hardware possible, stay away from

OS/2.

>> >> Today. Even its Java support is behind.
>>
>> >Which features are OS/2 users forced to live without in their Java
>> >implementation?  My current version of Java is implemented well enough
>> >to support the Java versions of ICQ, AIM, and Corel Office.  What am I
>> >giving up by not having the latest version?
>>
>> Corel Office? Right. A dog that was dropped. You are probably the only man
in
>> America using Corel Office. I suspect that you use it to say you can,
instead
>> of for real work.

>It impressed me.  It was the first real Java <application> (not applet)
>I've ever seen in action.  I much prefer using native SmartSuite, but I
>think it adequately illustrates the robustness and possibilities of Java
>apps.  Specifically apps that run on the currently supported version of
>Java for OS/2.

How exactly does a product that was so bad that it was dropped, just like e-
suite for that matter, "illustrates the robustness and possibilities of Java
apps"?

>> As for the features, new Java developing is moving towards Java2.

>You mean it's not there yet?  Why do I care where it is moving?

You don't, but Java developers do. It's their job and if it involves Java 2,
OS/2 isn't an option.

>> If you want to be a Java developer who is behind practically every other
>> OS and thus be non-competitive while making inferior Java products, by all
>> means, stick to OS/2.

>Or if you want to have write once, run anywhere applications, you
>conform to what is standard, thoroughly tested, and available anywhere.

If that were the case, we would still be programming in C. You see, people
hate
being help behind by stragglers.

>I think the apps I pointed out show the current OS/2 version of Java to
>be more than capable of doing complex, useful tasks.

You pointed out apps that were dropped from the face of the Earth and in all
cases, all the apps are slower and not feature equivalent to their native
counterparts. But what they lack their, they make up for in being harder to
install.

>> >[snip]
>>
>> >- Marty
>>
>> Truly, a rich use Marty, and similar to my own. I just have more fun. :-)

>Dubious.  My form of debugging my programs is playing arcade games.
>What's more fun than that?  :-)

Got me there!

>- Marty



Sheesh!! I'm trying to carve stuff out.

--
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                              18-Oct-99 00:26:16
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 03:19:22
Subj: Re: Congratulations!

From: Brad Barclay <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson wrote:

> > Microchannel  Far ahead of the ISA buss, as well as the EISA
> > buss, and only matched today with the PCI Buss.
>
> Not quite.  Microchannel was propriatary (IBM's hilarious attempt to regain
> them arket it quickly lost) and required a diskette containing an .adf
> controller file to tell the computer what to go do with itself.  If that
> diskette dies and you have no backup, you're screwed.  Such a concept is
> ridiculous.  Good for the time perhaps, but PCI is still far superior.

    Setup diskette aside, MCA bus based systems have features that PCI still
doesn't have.  Like the ability to flag memory pages as bad on the fly without
the need to reboot the system, removing them from the OS's pool of available
memory.  DMA based serial IO comes to mind as well, negating the need for the
CPU to constantly poll the UART for data.

    MCA still has some big advantages over PCI.  PCI's biggest advantages are
speed and support - but technology wise MCA is still more advanced.

> > MWave         Really an engineering and software marvel. Actead
> > as a sound card, and a Modeom at 33600
>
> If that's true, then Windows is a blessing for all.  I have two responses to
> your claim:
>
> 1.  Mwave started originally at 28800 baud.  Became 33600 baud later,
> provided that you sacrificed certain things when connected at that speed.

    Modems were originally available at speeds of < 110 bps.  They improved
over
time.  There is no reason why the MWAVE architecture couldn't be upgraded to
do
the same.

> Token ring 16 is purportedly faster than ethernet 100 on the same cable type
> (cat 5) because it makes better use of the bandwidth.  But the fact that
> many firms are switching from token ring to ethernet (including my county
> government offices) must suggest something about token ring which is crap.

    There is nothing wrong with Token Ring - I certainly prefer the technology
over Ethernet.  However, ethernet is more prevalent - it's the "lemming
syndrome" that is causing people to switch, not the technology.

> > OS/2.         Far ahead of Windows even today.
>
> Uh-huh.    We'll throw out the system input queue OS/2 is trapped with since
> that's too easy of a target.  OS/2's far ahead of windows, but only if you
> have hardware which won't act goofy when run by OS/2 (yet works perfectly
> under Linux, windows, BeOS, whatever).  Video cards come instantly to mind,
> I went through 8 video cards trying to find something that worked perfectly
> with OS/2.  Matrox millenium/II was the best, but I had to waddle through
> several brands and dealing with really quirky screen corruption and
> misplaced/distorted icon problems.  I'm glad it's behind me now.

    The SciTech Display Doctor drivers being licensed by IBM solve this
problem.  OS/2 should now run with nearly any video card using any more you
want
to.


> And in 1995 I do quite remember talking to IBM tech support, who told me
> that ethernet LAN cards couldn't use port 300 irq 9 under OS/2 but never
> explained why...  a computer running it was locking/freezing up at peculiar
> times when relating to the network...

    Many systems use IRQ 9 for the video display.  Some BIOS's also have
problems with it due to the mechanism in which IRQ's are cascaded (a relic of
the original 8 IRQ IBM PC architecture).  In general, IRQ 9 is bad news.

> > How long will it take Gerstner to realise that IBM's technical
> > prowess is second to none?
>
> Yo!!  This is IBM!!!  Stay with me here:  They made the PC in 1980 - with
> generic parts and a CPU which many critics said was "brain damaged" in terms
> of how the CPU interacted with memory and address addressing!  Back to the
> point, IBM saw that the microcomputer might challenge their own midrange
> monopoly and since IBM had a name to back itself up on, released a piece of
> shit and called it 'advanced'.  And, as IBM predicted, people bought it
> because of the name.  And yet you piddle arguements against Microsoft who is
> doing exactly what IBM had done in the past... sheesh.

    It seems to me that Microsoft took advantage of this exact same market,
and
continues to do so long after IBM discovered that such practices harm their
customers in the long run.  Microsoft has yet to learn this - I wonder if they
ever will.

> That's the intel 8088, by the way, being that crap CPU IBM used.  Motorola's
> CPU line was far advanced and far better designed than any intel chip.  The
> 80386 (circa 1983) alone had features which the Motorola 68000 had since
> 1977!!!!!  So you go learn how to study and then convince me how IBM is
> supposed to be better.  (I also have an acquaintance of sorts who worked for
> Unisys - and told me outright that the AS/400 is junk compared to their
> midrange line.)

    If you like Motorola's CPU's, then go out and buy a Mac.  You do a whole
lot
of complaining about PC's, but it seems to me that you're still using one
anyway.

> >  The IBM marketing dept has screwed
> > up more times than any other company in any industry.
>
> They deserve to be out of business and a long time ago, too.

    Why?  There are still many products that IBM does extremely well, and that
they make a ton of money with.


> >  It is
> > only the inertia of such a large company that they can continue,
> > blind to the fact that they cannot market their way out of a wet
> > paper bag!  Now IBM is considering slicing off all desktop PC
> > production to Dell and Acer.....
>
> Yeah, IBM has lost great loads of money on the PCs.  Coincidentially they
> are now saying "Avoid the PC, go NC."  What a load...

    IBM says this because that's what their biggest customers want.  Large
corporations are getting tired of the huge cost of running PC's.  As you say
yourself - PC's are crap.  They're poorly designed, and they're even worse to
administer, especially in any environment where your users are not technically
oriented.  NC's, on the other hand, are simple, cheap, and dirt easy to
administer.  Everything is maintained centrally - if a users NC dies, just
drop
in a new one - the users data is preserved.

    You're using such technologies right now, with this very newsgroup, the
web,
etc.  Network Computing is cool, inexpensive, and easy to use.  And IBM's
customers are demanding such technologies.


> >  however it is not the hardware
> > division of IBM that is at fault but rather the marketing dept.
>
> It took you *how long* to figure this common knowledge out?  (sorry, unlike
> you I've been free of blind os/2 fanaticism since mid-1997 and free of os/2
> since early-1998.)

    Pity - maybe if it were not so you'd know more about what you're talking
about :).


> > No other company in the computer business has blown the
> > marketing sooo badly.  Surely this must be on the minds of a few
> > IBMers?
>
> Anti-IBMers, yes.  Most IBMers are too busy praising IBM for making such
> so-called 'great' products which they think will sell themselves!  Duh!

    Most IBM'ers know the real score, and have a vision of where technology is
going in the future.  Perhaps if you did as well, you could be an IBM'er too
:).

Brad BARCLAY


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: via Internet Direct - http://www.mydirect.com/ (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         18-Oct-99 00:18:21
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 03:19:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>> Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>> Joseph wrote:

>>>>>> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer,
>>>>>> bummer.

>>>>> It's also bullshit.

>>>> Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.

>>>>> Download something like NetBeans, that requires
>>>>> JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
>>>> implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
>>>> of it, however.

>>> On the contrary, your very own logic proves that he said exactly
>>> that (Re your argument from the "costly mistakes" thread of some
>>> years ago which you've conveniently forgotten here).

>> I've not forgotten anything here.  Ironically, you've forgotten
>> something, namely that my "very own logic" involved the usage of
>> "prevent", as in "prevent costly mistakes" or "prevent wild fires",
>> which you insisted was ambiguous.  The quotation above does not
>> involve anything analogous to "prevent", which is why Timbol's
>> interpretation is incorrect, and also why your "on the contrary"
>> is incorrect.

> Wrong.

Is that the best you can do?  If you really didn't forget about
"prevent", then why did you omit such a crucial piece of history?

> Go back and reread the thread to find out why.

Rereading the thread won't explain why you omitted the crucial word
"prevent" from your first response.

I suggest you reread the thread to find out why you were wrong
then (and now).  You apparently need to refresh your memory about
certain critical portions of the argument, like the meaning of
"prevent".

"Only you can prevent forest fires."
   --Smokey Bear

"That's ambiguous."
   --Lucien

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         18-Oct-99 00:24:16
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 03:19:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:

> Feel free to reread the "costly mistakes" thread, if you're interested;
> it's still archived on USENET.

Indeed, complete with an explanation of why you're wrong, and complete
with your attempt to obfuscate the issue by tossing around jargon.

> Of course, you'll be no more capable of understanding what was going on
> than Tholen was.

It's hard to be more capable of understanding what was going go than I
was, because I understood quite well what was going on, including an
understanding of your attempts to obfuscate the issue by tossing around
jargon.  The fact that you omitted the crucial word "prevent" from your
first recent response demonstrates either an intentional attempt to
deceive readers now, or that you did not understand what was going on
back then, which would be rather ironic, considering the comment you
made above.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         18-Oct-99 00:49:16
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 03:19:22
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Roberto Alsina writes:

> I think I will indulge in some tholenisms, just for the bad old times'
> sake.

I wish you would, like indulging in some logic, but you keep missing
the mark by a wide margin.

>>> You were not nominated because of the fact you present, but because
>>> of another.

>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what motivated you
>> to submit a nomination.

> The fact for which you were nominated is not the fact that motivated
> me to nominate you.

You just contradicted yourself.  You just said, in effect, that your
motivation was not what motivated you.

By the way, what are these alleged "facts" that you're referring to?

> Your comprehension problems continue.

How ironic, considering the statement that you just wrote.

>> I'm simply noting the irony that you didn't nominate yourself, after
>> making such a boneheaded mistake and continuing to insist that you
>> were right, even after the source of the error was clearly identified.

> Being wrong is not kooky.

Insisting that you're right, even long after the source of the error
was identified, is.

> Insisting on mistakes is not kooky.

Insisting that you're right, even long after the source of the error
was identified, is.

> Even if what you say is true,

On what basis do you use the word "if", Roberto?  What I've said is
true.

> it still makes no sense.

History is just that, whether your past actions made any sense or not.

>>> That I was wrong in A doesn't prove I was wrong in B,

>> Irrelevant, given that I haven't claimed that you are wrong in B.  I'm
>> simply noting the irony that you didn't nominate yourself, for the
>> reason given above.

> Kooky reasons

What's allegedly "kooky" about the reasons, Roberto?

> for a kook.

Such as yourself.

> I should have guessed that.

And you should have nominated yourself.

>> You should have nominated yourself, Roberto.

> Why?

For the reasons given above, Roberto.  Are you still having reading
comprehension problems?

> I am not a kook.

Then why did you accuse me of posting an average of 134 articles
every day?  Why did you continue to insist that you were right, even
long after the source of your erroneous calculation was pointed out
to you?

> Or at least I do not believe I am a kook.

Your beliefs are irrelevant, Roberto.  Your actions are relevant.

> Why should I nominate a person I do not believe to be a kook?

Your beliefs are irrelevant, Roberto.  Your actions are relevant.
Your actions include a rather blatant error and a failure to
admit the error for a long time after the source of the error was
identified.

> That only makes sense in the mind of a kook: you.

I'm not the one who blew the math by an order of magnitude and
continued to insist that the calculation was correct, even long
after the source of the error was identified!  That was you who
did those things.

>>> which everyone who has read your drivel already knows you are.

>> The fact that you erroneously accused me of posting an average of
>> 134 articles every day is not "drivel".

> Of course it is not.

Glad you agree.

> You didn't post that.

On the contrary, that fact is what I posted in response to Jason S.'s
recent posting.

> I did.

On the contrary, you were silent until after I posted that fact.

> What you post is drivel.

The fact that you erroneously accused me of posting an average of
134 articles every day is not "drivel".

> What I post isn't.

An erroneous claim that I posted an average of 134 articles every day
isn't "drivel"?????  Think again, Roberto.

>>> The award would have been just a cherry on the cake, a "official"
>>> acknowledgement of your nuttiness.

>> I'm not the one who botched the math, Roberto.  You did.

> But you are the kook, Dave.

Incorrect.  You're the one who made the false accusation and stuck
to it long after the error was identified.

>>> Fear not, you're still a kook in my heart.

>> What you have in your heart is irrelevant to me.

> But not to me,

Then start your own newsgroup and post articles to which you can
respond.

> and that's why I share it with the world,

Meanwhile, I'm sharing the facts about your own bizarre behavior,
and all you can talk about is what you have in your heart.

> kooky.

Trying the old "truth by proclamation" approach, eh Roberto?

> Anyway, that was not the only time you argued with a computer
> program.

I've never argued with a computer program.

> Do you authorize me to show here the other one?

There is no "other one".  I respond to postings made by people.
Some of those people post responses using personal attacks; some
post responses using deletion tactics to avoid dealing with certain
issues; some post responses generated by computer programs; I deal
with all those responses.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         18-Oct-99 00:51:00
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 03:19:22
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> As a courtesy to those that do not wish to see your self-absorbed
> drivel,

What alleged "self-absorbed drivel", Marty?

> could you please keep your antispammed ID consistent so it can
> be easily filtered?

How ironic, coming from someone who actually encouraged responses
rather recently.

> Thanks in advance.

Do make up your mind, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                              17-Oct-99 13:45:11
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 03:19:22
Subj: Re: Hey Mr. WarpCity...

From: [e-mail] (Paul Smedley)

On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 14:30:41, Dennis Peterson <[e-mail]>
wrote:
> > Tim has been seriously injured in an accident.
>
> Is there more info about this? Twit or no, there is always room for
> concern for a fellow's well-being.

Apparently he had a collision with another surfer and hurt his knee
pretty bad.  he ahd some kind of surgery on the knee last week, so
should be on the mend soon.

Seeya,

Paul Smedley

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   18-Oct-99 00:15:17
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 10:22:23
Subj: Re: Several points

From: [e-mail] (Don Hills)

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>1. I am back.

I hadn't noticed you had gone.

>2. What do I have to download in order to make OS/2 install disks
>support large hard disks (10 GB)?

Look for IDEDASD.ZIP on IBM's Web site. I forget the URL, but using
IDEDASD in the search engine on www.ibm.com should find it.

--
Don Hills      (dmhills at ibmdotnet)     Wellington, New Zealand

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      18-Oct-99 13:16:11
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 10:22:24
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande⌐" <[e-mail]>

Stuart Fox <[e-mail]> a Θcrit dans le message :
7ue56e$9fipg$[e-mail]...

>
> > Matt Templeton is a lying lemming with an IQ of 4 at most
>
> Can you prove this - or is it just anecdotal?   ;-)

More importantly, can he provide us with an URL ? :)

> Stu

Paul 'Z' Ewande
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Club-Internet (France) (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  18-Oct-99 07:14:01
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 10:22:24
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something or other claiming to be a <[e-mail]> (without an
"e" appended and mispeled (!) to make it [e-mail])
tholened:

> As a courtesy to those that do not wish to see your self-absorbed
> > drivel,
>
> What alleged "self-absorbed drivel", Marty?

Pretty much everything you write on your beloved uselessnet, Tholane.  But
you know that, that's why you are a Kook of the Month, Tholane.

> Do make up your mind, Marty.

Yes, Tholane, you should do first - decide how you spell your name,
f'rinstance.  Then perhaps you won't be subjected to criticism.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        18-Oct-99 11:56:02
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 10:22:24
Subj: Re: Congratulations!

From: [e-mail] (J. Scott McPhee)

On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 20:42:18, "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> > Token Ring Lan Adapter  Only today with switching hubs can
> > Ethernet match what Token ring did 10 years ago!
>
> Token ring 16 is purportedly faster than ethernet 100 on the same cable type
> (cat 5) because it makes better use of the bandwidth.  But the fact that
> many firms are switching from token ring to ethernet (including my county
> government offices) must suggest something about token ring which is crap.

It suggest nothing about token ring. Obviously, you know nothing about
network architecture or you would not make such a statement.

Ethernet's saturation point (ie Hits the Wall) at 30 % of line
utilization. Token Ring's saturation point is 95 % of line
utilization. Therefore, while an ethernet's connection is initially
much faster, it quickly degrades as more connections are made in the
same LAN segment as compared to Token Ring. To compensate for this,
LAN managers have to install more hubs and switches for an ethernet
LAN than a Token Ring LAN (ie break up the LAN into smaller segments).
As an example, our Token Ring LAN at work grew to over 150 connections
on a single LAN segment before we broke down and bought Hubs and
Switching equitment for it. The reason we did this was more of a LAN
managment issue than a performance issue.

Low entry cost is the primary reason why ethernet is popular. Ethernet
NIC cards cost only 40 to 50 dollars per PC compared to 150 to 200
dollars for a Token Ring card. This makes Ethernet ideal for a small
office or home network. However, as the Ethernet LAN get larger more
and more hubs and switching equipment has to be bought and installed
to maintain the same performance level, and the relative cost start
balancing out.

Regards
J. Scott McPhee

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           18-Oct-99 08:00:20
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 10:22:24
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7udcja$[e-mail]>, on 10/17/99 at 03:46 PM,
   "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]> said:

> Sorry, but Brad's got some weight.

The above quote says all one needs to know about you, Kelly. The only
weight Brad W has is the stone between his ears.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           18-Oct-99 08:04:03
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 10:22:24
Subj: Re: Congratulations!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7udcap$[e-mail]>, on 10/17/99 at 03:42 PM,
   "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]> said:

> That's the intel 8088, by the way, being that crap CPU IBM used.
> Motorola's CPU line was far advanced and far better designed than any
> intel chip.  The 80386 (circa 1983) alone had features which the
> Motorola 68000 had since 1977!!!!!  So you go learn how to study and
> then convince me how IBM is supposed to be better.  (I also have an
> acquaintance of sorts who worked for Unisys - and told me outright that
> the AS/400 is junk compared to their midrange line.)

More crap from the fevered moron. If the damn Mororola 680x series was so
wonderful, how come the Apple is such a piece of shit, Kelly?

The Apple is a graphics based system barely capable of number crunching.
It's very good at doing what it is designed to do, -play games and display
pretty graphics. It sucks as a business tool with current generation
programs a mere shadow of 3 or 4 generation old Intel programs.

And since when was Unisys considered a major player in any portion of the
computer field. It is a no-brains service company barely holding on to its
meager existance thanks to service contracts with the Government no one
else wants. If Congress ever passed a flat tax, Unisys would be out of
business since without the IRS it wouldn't exist.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 9
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   18-Oct-99 22:25:07
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 11:10:16
Subj: Re: Congratulations!

From: [e-mail] (Don Hills)

In article <7udcap$[e-mail]>,
"Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Not quite.  Microchannel was propriatary (IBM's hilarious attempt to regain
>them arket it quickly lost) and required a diskette containing an .adf
>controller file to tell the computer what to go do with itself.  If that
>diskette dies and you have no backup, you're screwed.  Such a concept is
>ridiculous.  Good for the time perhaps, but PCI is still far superior.

And it's taken how many years, and how many attempts (remember EISA?) to
come up with something better than Micro Channel was then? Micro Channel
has continued to be developed too, it's still the performance bus in
RS/6000 systems. As for the ADF system, if you struck a resource
conflict that the "plug'n'play" manager couldn't resolve, you could edit
the ADF files manually. If you get an unresolvable resource conflict
with PCI PNP adapters with their ROM-based config info, you're hosed.

>Token ring 16 is purportedly faster than ethernet 100 on the same cable type
>(cat 5) because it makes better use of the bandwidth.  But the fact that
>many firms are switching from token ring to ethernet (including my county
>government offices) must suggest something about token ring which is crap.

Token-ring is being ripped out and replaced by Ethernet because Ethernet
is perceived as cheaper and there's a wider choice of vendors. Ethernet
is cheaper until you factor in the cost of switching hubs to bring the
loading up to that achievable by T-R. If you don't need high loading,
Ethernet is fine. Again, it's taken how many years to get to this stage?

On this topic of perceived low cost, mice are another example. Mice used
to have heavy steel balls with a grey rubber coating. They would work on
almost any surface. Manufacturers reduced their cost by changing to
plastic balls with a black rubber coating. These would skip and slide on
anything other than a proper mouse pad, the pinnacle of which is the 3M
precise mouse pad. I notice that the trend is now the other way, you can
now buy mice with the heavy balls again. They cost a little more, but
they're still cheaper than the combination of light-ball mouse and mouse
pad. "Real mice have steel balls..."

> ...(I also have an acquaintance of sorts who worked for
>Unisys - and told me outright that the AS/400 is junk compared to their
>midrange line.)

Your Unisys acquaintance is commendably loyal, but sadly misinformed. Or
maybe sour grapes that the Unisys midrange line sells poorly against the
AS/400. If IBM's AS/400 range was split off into its own company, it'd
be the second largest computer company in the world behind the rest of
IBM. It's not the IBM name that makes AS/400 systems sell so well, it's
the fact that they are the best for the job. Dull, boring, cheap to buy
and run, and utterly reliable. Microsoft use quite a few of them in
Redmond and around the world.

>It took you *how long* to figure this common knowledge out?  (sorry, unlike
>you I've been free of blind os/2 fanaticism since mid-1997 and free of os/2
>since early-1998.)

There is none so strident as a reformed drinker/smoker/sinner/whatever.
It's ironic that you label people here as fanatics when you're the one
who "got religion". And as I've pointed out twice already this post,
you're just as slow at figuring things out.

>> In a few years IBM will be strictly a service company and no
>> longer an innovative computer company.  Has anyone ever sent a
>> message like this to Gerstner?

Do you think he doesn't know already? You'd better enlighten him then.
There's a "mail to Lou" link off the main IBM page. Remember to post a
copy of the mail here too, it seems to be the done thing...

>You know, if you check historical logs back to the early 1950s, IBM had sold
>a vacuum-tube computer.  It was generic shit, too - but IBM made it big
>because they hyped up support and how IBM would be there.

Generic shit? You mean they used generic tubes instead of making their
own? There was no such thing as generic computer parts in the '50s, and
wouldn't be for another 25 years. How can we take you seriously when you
can't come up with something credible?

--
Don Hills      (dmhills at ibmdotnet)     Wellington, New Zealand

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           18-Oct-99 08:12:12
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 11:10:16
Subj: Re: Congratulations!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 10/18/99 at 12:26 AM,
   Brad Barclay <[e-mail]> said:

> Kelly Robinson wrote:

Your first mistake, Brad. Arguing with a mental defective angered because
he was so technically inept he couldn't get his video card to play games
for him.

>     MCA still has some big advantages over PCI.  PCI's biggest
> advantages are speed and support - but technology wise MCA is still more
> advanced.

Absolutely true.

> > 1.  Mwave started originally at 28800 baud.  Became 33600 baud later,
> > provided that you sacrificed certain things when connected at that speed.

>     Modems were originally available at speeds of < 110 bps.  They
> improved over time.  There is no reason why the MWAVE architecture
> couldn't be upgraded to do the same.

Of course it could, and would have been had not modem technology been
pushed forward by Hayes and USRobotics at a pace no large corporation
could match due to internal inertia. It is interesting to note that modem
technology is basically at a dead end. Hayes is bankrupt and 3Com is much
more interested in network hardware than modem development.

> > Token ring 16 is purportedly faster than ethernet 100 on the same cable
type
> > (cat 5) because it makes better use of the bandwidth.  But the fact that
> > many firms are switching from token ring to ethernet (including my county
> > government offices) must suggest something about token ring which is crap.

>     There is nothing wrong with Token Ring - I certainly prefer the
> technology over Ethernet.  However, ethernet is more prevalent - it's
> the "lemming syndrome" that is causing people to switch, not the
> technology.

Not only the lemming syndrome spawned by MicroSoft but the virtual lack of
meaningful Token Ring products for those needing to expand existing
networks. The 3Coms of the world have made Ethernet hardware so dirt cheap
that superior technology cannot compete in the real world.

(Stupid Kelly's main complaint deleted here. Having set up well over 1,600
OS/2 based PC's in a variety of settings, I know he or she is an absolute
asshole. A Trident chipset clone card selling for less than $30 is more
than satisfactory for any business use I have ever encountered other than
CAD/CAM).

>     The SciTech Display Doctor drivers being licensed by IBM solve this
> problem.  OS/2 should now run with nearly any video card using any more
> you want to.

It will eventually. There are still some custom implementation of standard
chipsets which don't quite measure up for intense graphics. It is being
worked on, however.

>     Many systems use IRQ 9 for the video display.  Some BIOS's also have
> problems with it due to the mechanism in which IRQ's are cascaded (a
> relic of the original 8 IRQ IBM PC architecture).  In general, IRQ 9 is
> bad news.

Another advantage of MCA.

> > Yo!!  This is IBM!!!  Stay with me here:  They made the PC in 1980 - with
> > generic parts and a CPU which many critics said was "brain damaged" in
terms
> > of how the CPU interacted with memory and address addressing!  Back to the
> > point, IBM saw that the microcomputer might challenge their own midrange
> > monopoly and since IBM had a name to back itself up on, released a piece
of
> > shit and called it 'advanced'.  And, as IBM predicted, people bought it
> > because of the name.  And yet you piddle arguements against Microsoft who
is
> > doing exactly what IBM had done in the past... sheesh.

>     It seems to me that Microsoft took advantage of this exact same
> market, and continues to do so long after IBM discovered that such
> practices harm their customers in the long run.  Microsoft has yet to
> learn this - I wonder if they ever will.

I quoted Dense Kelly's rant because it is so wrong it is actually funny.
It was a marketing decision to introduce the PC, not to make a profit, but
to soak up mainframe machine cycles in a very bad period of recession many
economists see as an actual depression. (Remember 1980? I remember a 22%
prime rate, a virtually dead housing industry, the worst car sales in
decades, 12+% unemployment, 18% annual inflation). They chose an open
architecture because IBM didn't see any real profit potential in PC's
which events prove quite correct.

>     If you like Motorola's CPU's, then go out and buy a Mac.  You do a
> whole lot of complaining about PC's, but it seems to me that you're
> still using one anyway.

It must be because Kelly's beloved sourapple can't crunch numbers fast
enough, can't be taken on the road because there is no really satisfactory
notebook, etc.

> > >  The IBM marketing dept has screwed
> > > up more times than any other company in any industry.
> >
> > They deserve to be out of business and a long time ago, too.

>     Why?  There are still many products that IBM does extremely well,
> and that they make a ton of money with.

Kelly, like so many other idiot savants here, seems to fail to understand
that the B in IBM stands for BUSINESS. Just as individuals and small
office concerns cannot buy directly from Ford, Westinghouse, General
Motors, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc., no longer can they do so from IBM.
At least IBM tried to support the SOHO users, but found that strategy
incompatible with its core business. That is the sign of good management
and is reflected in its continued recognition as a Blue Chip company with
a long line of unbroken dividends to the people who count, - the
shareholders who own the company.

> > Yeah, IBM has lost great loads of money on the PCs.  Coincidentially they
> > are now saying "Avoid the PC, go NC."  What a load...

>     IBM says this because that's what their biggest customers want.
> Large corporations are getting tired of the huge cost of running PC's.
> As you say yourself - PC's are crap.  They're poorly designed, and
> they're even worse to administer, especially in any environment where
> your users are not technically oriented.  NC's, on the other hand, are
> simple, cheap, and dirt easy to administer.  Everything is maintained
> centrally - if a users NC dies, just drop in a new one - the users data
> is preserved.

Kelly must be the person who told me to meet him at the corner of One Way
and Don't Walk. As I said above, the B in IBM stands for Business and the
owners of IBM are most appreciative of that fact.

>     You're using such technologies right now, with this very newsgroup,
> the web, etc.  Network Computing is cool, inexpensive, and easy to use.
> And IBM's customers are demanding such technologies.

And that brain dead (in the opinion of those who think Tu Pak Shakur is an
Asian country) IBM marketing department is responding accordingly. The
shortsighted sellers of ledgers and pencils laughed at and scorned IBM in
the 1920's when it brought punch card based machine accounting to the
world. Tom Watson, Sr. took a lot of convincing by TJ Junior to begin the
migration from punch cards and relays to magnetic tape and transistors.
But it was those stupid fools in IBM marketing who saw the future and
moved the company to the forefront.

BTW, did you ever see an electro-mechanical calculator which did
subtraction by sequential subtraction? It could make a 300 pound steel
desk jump when dividing as it moved a 15+ pound carriage back and forth
while spinning wheels, gears, cogs, etc.

> > >  however it is not the hardware
> > > division of IBM that is at fault but rather the marketing dept.
> >
> > It took you *how long* to figure this common knowledge out?  (sorry,
unlike
> > you I've been free of blind os/2 fanaticism since mid-1997 and free of
os/2
> > since early-1998.)

>     Pity - maybe if it were not so you'd know more about what you're
> talking about :).

Kelly must be the person who missed the 44 bus and took the 22 twice. He
or she was incapable of setting up his or her PC so blamed a sophisticated
OS designed for professionals and went running, tail between legs, to the
brain dead spawn of OS/2 called Windoze.

Actually, IBM did make one mistake when it decided to introduce the PC as
a replacement for the typewriter in corporate offices. That mistake was
made not by marketing, but by the Executive Offices. They made 2 bad
decisions, actually. First they decided not to design its own operating
system. Then they decided to entrust the task to a thief who had stolen
the operating system from Seattle Computer. Had they not been quite so
arrogant when implementing the second bad decision, Digital Research would
have been the company, not Master Criminal Bill Gates' MicroSoft.

> > > No other company in the computer business has blown the
> > > marketing sooo badly.  Surely this must be on the minds of a few
> > > IBMers?
> >
> > Anti-IBMers, yes.  Most IBMers are too busy praising IBM for making such
> > so-called 'great' products which they think will sell themselves!  Duh!

And most importantly, the customers with deep pockets and the owners of
IBM are very, very satisfied with the decisions IBM has made and is
making. The dunderheads like Kelly Robinson fail to realize that the
reason Lou Gerstner was brought in was because of the mess that the PC
folks got the company into with pursuit of the SOHO market.

>     Most IBM'ers know the real score, and have a vision of where
> technology is going in the future.  Perhaps if you did as well, you
> could be an IBM'er too :).

Not until Kelly learns that Taco Bell is not the Mexican telephone
company.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 9
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           18-Oct-99 08:54:14
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 11:10:16
Subj: Re: Congratulations!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 10/18/99 at 10:25 PM,
   [e-mail] (Don Hills) said:

> In article <7udcap$[e-mail]>,
> "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> There is none so strident as a reformed drinker/smoker/sinner/whatever.
> It's ironic that you label people here as fanatics when you're the one
> who "got religion". And as I've pointed out twice already this post,
> you're just as slow at figuring things out.

You are arguing with a pinhead who probably never heard of the Altair,
knows nothing of the history of MicroSoft or Master Thief Bill Gates,
never heard of the reason IBM introduced a PC, and is incapable of
figuring out how to make Warp run on his hardware.

> >> In a few years IBM will be strictly a service company and no
> >> longer an innovative computer company.  Has anyone ever sent a
> >> message like this to Gerstner?

> Do you think he doesn't know already? You'd better enlighten him then.
> There's a "mail to Lou" link off the main IBM page. Remember to post a
> copy of the mail here too, it seems to be the done thing...

If IBM becomes simply a service company, the world will likely come to a
crash far worse than the doomsday soothsayers about Y2K horrors. IBM is by
far the world's largest producer of mid-range and mainframe hardware with
no really significant competition at either level.

> >You know, if you check historical logs back to the early 1950s, IBM had
sold
> >a vacuum-tube computer.  It was generic shit, too - but IBM made it big
> >because they hyped up support and how IBM would be there.

> Generic shit? You mean they used generic tubes instead of making their
> own? There was no such thing as generic computer parts in the '50s, and
> wouldn't be for another 25 years. How can we take you seriously when you
> can't come up with something credible?

First of all, Kelly Dunce must be referring to the IBM 604 and 704's of
the early 1950's. They were not computers nor marketed as such. They were,
and were marketed as, electronic calculators. They were not programmable,
they had no memory, no CPU. They were controlled by "breadboards". For the
uninitiated, breadboard was slang for a device with holes on the front and
studs for each hole on the back. One told the machine what to do by
running little wires from one hole to another sometimes using a Y wire to
run one hole to two locations. The data was input from an
electro-mechanical reader-punch which read a punch card. The input data
was then manipulated (added, subtracted, multiplied, divided) by the
vacuum tubes based upon the instructions from the breadboard wires. The
output was then passed to the reader-punch which punched the answers into
a card. It's been 38 years since I last wired an IBM breadboard. The 604
had a dual panel breadboard. If memory serves, each panel had 40 columns
of 80 rows each. We never made the decision to go to the 704. Instead we
jumped from the 604/521 Reader-Punch combo to a 1401 which was a computer,
entirely proprietary.

And more to the point, I believe IBM made those 20 thousand or so vacuum
tubes in the 604. They were tiny little things soldered into place in
banks of a couple of hundred each if memory serves.

And if Kelly wants to be rid of IBM, he or she better find something other
than a keyboard to run his or her Apple, better find something other than
a hard drive to store data, better find something else than a monitor to
display data, find something other than a printer to make paper output,
and use batteries to power it all since the electronic keyboard, the hard
disk, the CRT monitor, the printer, and switching power supply are all
products of IBM's research.

In summary, Kelly Robinson is someone who having heard that 90% of all
accidents occur in the home moves out.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           18-Oct-99 09:13:18
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 11:10:16
Subj: Re: IBM's Marketing Skills

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <380a3cb3$3$qnivfs$[e-mail]>, on 10/17/99 at 05:10 PM,
   [e-mail] said:


> I read your posts with fascination and they never fail to inform. Thank
> you for that. I do try to read them attentively but, in a busy day, I'm
> sure to miss some things.

> The concern in this newsgroup is for the fate of OS/2, not the fate of
> IBM. Obviously they are linked but not reciprocally for, as you say, IBM
> can survive the demise of OS/2. I found little in your post to build
> confidence about the survival of the latter and the above lines about
> nostalgia don't help in that regard.

> Oh, I care about IBM alright - I'm a stockholder. But it's OS/2 I'm
> worried about.

You missed, or I failed to properly set forth, the thrust of my argument.
IBM fully supports Warp for its large corporate customers and provides
avenues, albeit no superhighways, for the SOHO user who sees his/her
computer as a business tool first and an entertainment center secondarily
if at all. As long as the big customers, which include some foreign
government agencies, are satisfied with Warp, it will continue to be
supported. As long as it is, we will likely have support as long as we are
willing to pay a nominal $100 or so a year for same.

Are we guaranteed this? Of course not. But just as the first jet airliners
signified the demise of propeller driven transports, there are still
people flying and getting support for DC-3's, Lockheed Electras, Convair
x40's, etc. because there are still profits to be made from supporting
them. As long as the overwhelming majority of ATM transactions are handled
by Warp based machines and IBM remains in the banking hardware business, I
believe we will see continued support for Warp.

The problem with so many computer users is that they feel that they must
have the latest and greatest hardware, software, etc. They have fallen
into the marketing hype of MicroSoft as surely as automobile buyers have
fallen into the hype of Ford, GM, Toyota, etc., etc., etc.. As long as my
computer can do the things I need doing and can foresee doing for the next
year, 2 years, etc., I feel no urgency to update. I do maintain my system
by adding additional disk space, memory, etc. Currently, I am running four
machines on my network, a Pentium 90, a Pentium 150, a Pentium 233, and a
Pentium II 400. I am still running Lantastic for OS/2 because I own four
copies and it meets our needs.

If I want a new "look", I can replace my 4 year old monitor for under $200
(for a 17 Inch one). It will give me the same visual satisfaction as
replacing my tower case based PII 400 with a PIII 650. The latter will not
give me any better performance for the things we do. Why replace it?

The same is true of my operating system. Until it can no longer handle
what I need to do, what reason have I, as a businessman, to go down a
learning curve with a new OS, new software, etc.? Many of my clients are
law firms. They are still using DOS and WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS and will
continue to do so well into the next millenium because it meets their
needs, offers the least cost way to be Y2K compliant, and is fully
compatible with the hundreds of gigs of documents created in the past 10
years or more, something not otherwise available.

I have made a lot of money in the last year+ showing those law firms using
WP 5.1, Novell, and Win 3.11 that they don't have to spends tens of
thousands of dollars for hardware and software to become Y2K ready. PC-DOS
7 costs them less than $150 per machine, installed. Patches for WFWG are
free and are installed when PC-DOS 7 is installed as part of the cost.
Their e-mail programs aren't Y2K dependent. Their accounting software is
generally Y2K ready or is being upgraded as I type by the authors. For
CD-ROM based law books, a single machine running NT or 98 acts as the
source and passes the output via the network to the attorney, secretary,
paralegal, etc. to a WinOS/2 session. The major complaint comes from newer
hires who miss the features of IE when surfing the net. The principals are
more than happy to preclude their employees from visiting poronographic
websites, playing games, buying things on line, etc.



--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 9
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           18-Oct-99 09:54:12
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 11:10:16
Subj: Re: Time to move on

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 10/17/99 at 08:41 PM,
   David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> said:

> But that still means that an OS/2 users is a computer user. Do you know
> of any  OS/2 users who are NOT computer users?

Tens of thousands if not millions! FYI, the chances are better than 92%
that when you use an ATM machine to get money, etc. you are using OS/2. If
you ride the national train system in France and need ticket, timetable,
etc. help from the interactive terminals in each station, you are using
OS/2. Some using those machines are surely computer users. But many are
not.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 9
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           18-Oct-99 09:57:20
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 11:10:16
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7ue56e$9fipg$[e-mail]>, on 10/18/99 at 04:45 PM,
   "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]> said:


> "Bob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> >
> > I have reported directly to MicroSoft serveral reproducable problems with
> > Win 98 as released and which still exist after applying all available
> > updates and fixpacks. They also exist in Windows 98, Second Edition.

I don't have the list handy, but I remember three( whoops make that 4)
(Better make that 5) off the top of my head:

1. It takes the MS dialer 1 minute 4 seconds to connect to my ISP or 9
others I have tested with using Win 9x. It takes less than 8 seconds using
OS/2, DOS, or Win 3.1 This has been confirmed by four of the ISP's as a
chronic problem with Win 9x.

2. Win 95 and 98 both fail to properly recognize or set up the IDE
Busmastering of Tyan motherboards when a PNP NIC is also in the system.

3. Win 95 and 98 both fail to heed the setting in Hardware Manager to
remove my Wangtek SCSI tape drive from the profile and consistently place
it back with a Bang.

4. With USRobotics V.90 PNP Internal modems (not the winmodem version)
both insist in installing a "standard" modem on the same port as the USR
modem. Removing it only slows the next boot while it reports it found new
hardware and is installing drivers for it.

5. Applying on-line updates to a machine with non-MS partitions farkles
the partition table and MBR of the hard drive on my ThinkPad 390E. I
reported this to the OS/2 support group at IBM and was told that they had
reported it to MS without response.

> I feel I need to call you up on this one.  Can you post a list of those
> bugs?  It's pretty easy to make a claim, harder to prove it.  Sorry to
> seem like a doubter, but that's the nature of usenet.

One of the other two was a problem with Netware and setting up the network
administration which Novell also complained to MS about. I forget the
exact nature of the problem.

In addition, MS continues to warn that Boot Manager will not work once Win
9x is installed which is pure bullshit. The readme does tell one how to
reactivate BM or LILO, etc., but

Moreover, when one selects dial up networking only, one gets, in addition
to TCP/IP, NetBuei and another protocol as well as MS CHAP authentication
which most ISP's do not support. I believe I reported this one, but may
not have bothered. This prevents users from properly connecting to their
existing ISP's and leads many to subscribing to MSN.

> > Matt Templeton is a lying lemming with an IQ of 4 at most

> Can you prove this - or is it just anecdotal?   ;-)

It is a logical conclusion based on the posts of one who obviously thinks
Taco Bell is the Mexican telephone company.




--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             18-Oct-99 16:45:09
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 11:10:16
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]>

"Bob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:3809aa4b$4$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <7ub246$[e-mail]>, on 10/16/99 at 06:35 PM,
>    "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > I must give Microsoft credit for once - they are trying to do something
> > RIGHT and fix as many bugs as they can.
>
> Only a true lemming or an absolutely mentally retarded moron would make
> such a statement. I reported at least 8 reproduceable bugs in Windows 95,
> OSR1 which still exist in OSRb.
>
> I have reported directly to MicroSoft serveral reproducable problems with
> Win 98 as released and which still exist after applying all available
> updates and fixpacks. They also exist in Windows 98, Second Edition.

I feel I need to call you up on this one.  Can you post a list of those
bugs?  It's pretty easy to make a claim, harder to prove it.  Sorry to seem
like a doubter, but that's the nature of usenet.

> Matt Templeton is a lying lemming with an IQ of 4 at most

Can you prove this - or is it just anecdotal?   ;-)

Stu


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Customer of Telecom Internet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 18-Oct-99 07:19:28
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 11:10:17
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <[e-mail]>,
josco  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 [e-mail] wrote:
>
>> In article <7u4cj4$7eb$[e-mail]>,
>>   [e-mail] wrote:
>> > Mike Timbol writes:
>> >
>> > > Joseph wrote:
>> >
>> > >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.
>> >
>> > > It's also bullshit.  Download something like NetBeans, that requires
>> > > JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
>> >
>> > Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
>> > implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
>> > of it, however.

Well, by the prized logic of Dave Tholen, one could say DOS implements
OS/2 functionality.  A typically useless statement when viewed using
Tholen-logic.

>> On the contrary, your very own logic proves that he said exactly that
>> (Re your argument from the "costly mistakes" thread of some years ago
>> which you've conveniently forgotten here).
>
>Semantics and syntax.
>
>What I said had a different meaning than what was edited and argued
>against.  Tholen's comment was consistent with what was meant and said.
>
>BTW a person's logic, as I understand logic, argues possibilities.  Logic
>could show something is possible.  Mike's interpretation is possible.  It
>was not relevant to what I meant nor in context with what I wrote.  It is
>not as plausible an interpretation given the context of the post to which
>he replied.

The context of your post was that version numbers were not indicative
of functionality.

One example was that one Netscape version had the functionality (but
not the UI) of a higher-version number Nestcape version on another
platform.  In that example, the lower-numbered version could be used
to view web pages designed for the higher-numbered version.  I agree with
this example.

Unfortunately, your other example was that one version number of Java on
OS/2 (JDK 1.1.8) had the functionality of a higher version number on
Windows / Solaris (JDK 1.2).  This example I disagree with, because the
claim is false.

You cannot use JDK 1.1.8 to run a program designed for JDK 1.2.

     - Mike

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           18-Oct-99 11:21:05
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 16:32:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "(Cybiades) Peter B" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:3809aa4b$4$obot$[e-mail]...

Dude; what is it with you and lemmings? What did Psygnosis ever do to you?

'Later
Peter

--
Cybiades: Computing for fun!
http://cybiades.home.mindspring.com (version 4+ browsers)
http://www.mindspring.com/~cybiades (version <3 browsers)
Father of Chloe Iris Raquel!
Home of Fels


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Stygoronomous! (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                  18-Oct-99 17:26:03
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 16:32:02
Subj: Re: Time to move on

From: "Lennart Gahm" <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:54:24 -0400, Bob Germer wrote:

>On <[e-mail]>, on 10/17/99 at 08:41 PM,
>   David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> said:
>
>> But that still means that an OS/2 users is a computer user. Do you know
>> of any  OS/2 users who are NOT computer users?
>
>Tens of thousands if not millions! FYI, the chances are better than 92%
>that when you use an ATM machine to get money, etc. you are using OS/2. If
>you ride the national train system in France and need ticket, timetable,
>etc. help from the interactive terminals in each station, you are using
>OS/2. Some using those machines are surely computer users. But many are
>not.

Her is a link to one of the 8 other percents of ATMs.
http://www.jmast.se/warpx/sparbanken1.jpg
It shows a Swedish ATM with NT and the message (translated to english) says
"End of virtually memory".
I have never seen anything similar on an OS/2 ATM.

Lennart




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Telia Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               18-Oct-99 14:32:17
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 22:36:23
Subj: Re: Congratulations!

From: Brad BARCLAY <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer wrote:
> And if Kelly wants to be rid of IBM, he or she better find something other
> than a keyboard to run his or her Apple, better find something other than
> a hard drive to store data, better find something else than a monitor to
> display data, find something other than a printer to make paper output,
> and use batteries to power it all since the electronic keyboard, the hard
> disk, the CRT monitor, the printer, and switching power supply are all
> products of IBM's research.

    Don't forget IBM's biggest advancement (which, at one time at least,
was patented):  the blinking cursor!  (I kid you not :).

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  [e-mail]        Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             18-Oct-99 18:29:11
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 22:36:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7udpc1$13t$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:
>
> > Feel free to reread the "costly mistakes" thread, if you're
interested;
> > it's still archived on USENET.
>
> Indeed, complete with an explanation of why you're wrong, and complete
> with your attempt to obfuscate the issue by tossing around jargon.
>
> > Of course, you'll be no more capable of understanding what was
going on
> > than Tholen was.
>
> It's hard to be more capable of understanding what was going go than I
> was, because I understood quite well what was going on, including an

Nope. You were lost the whole time.

> understanding of your attempts to obfuscate the issue by tossing
around
> jargon.

Wrong. You're still lost.

>The fact that you omitted the crucial word "prevent" from your
> first recent response demonstrates either an intentional attempt to

Wrong.

> deceive readers now, or that you did not understand what was going on

Still wrong.

> back then, which would be rather ironic, considering the comment you
> made above.

Still wrong...

Quiz grade: F.

Lucien S.



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             18-Oct-99 18:34:07
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 22:36:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7udp13$13t$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>> Mike Timbol writes:
>
> >>>>> Joseph wrote:
>
> >>>>>> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer,
> >>>>>> bummer.
>
> >>>>> It's also bullshit.
>
> >>>> Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2
functionality.
>
> >>>>> Download something like NetBeans, that requires
> >>>>> JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
>
> >>>> Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
> >>>> implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
> >>>> of it, however.
>
> >>> On the contrary, your very own logic proves that he said exactly
> >>> that (Re your argument from the "costly mistakes" thread of some
> >>> years ago which you've conveniently forgotten here).
>
> >> I've not forgotten anything here.  Ironically, you've forgotten
> >> something, namely that my "very own logic" involved the usage of
> >> "prevent", as in "prevent costly mistakes" or "prevent wild fires",
> >> which you insisted was ambiguous.  The quotation above does not
> >> involve anything analogous to "prevent", which is why Timbol's
> >> interpretation is incorrect, and also why your "on the contrary"
> >> is incorrect.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Is that the best you can do?  If you really didn't forget about
> "prevent", then why did you omit such a crucial piece of history?
>
> > Go back and reread the thread to find out why.
>
> Rereading the thread won't explain why you omitted the crucial word
> "prevent" from your first response.

It will reveal why your Java support statement is at odds with the
argument you made 4 years ago in the "costly mistakes" thread (if you
can follow your own argument therein, that is).

Happy reading,

Lucien S.

> I suggest you reread the thread to find out why you were wrong
> then (and now).  You apparently need to refresh your memory about
> certain critical portions of the argument, like the meaning of
> "prevent".
>
> "Only you can prevent forest fires."
>    --Smokey Bear
>
> "That's ambiguous."
>    --Lucien
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            18-Oct-99 20:25:16
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 22:36:23
Subj: Re: IBM's Marketing Skills

From: Tim Timmins <[e-mail]>

No, I mean THE repository, where data, meta data and everything are
stored.

Regards,
Tim

[e-mail] wrote:

>
> The Device driver repository (I think that is what you mean)?
> Really is not that big of a deal.  Those (repository's) have
> been around since the early Fidonet/RBBS days (1983).
>
> Person to Person is really only an app.  All the suggestions I
> listed, are potential industries on their own.  Ether net is
> huge.  3com is huge, PCI is everywhere, Mwave (sound card
> industry as well as modem) is huge.  Os/2 (IBM coulda, woulda,
> shouda, DIDN'T)
> >
> > I don't think Mwave got screwed, it just got overtaken by the
> rapid
> > growth of music and graphics on the internet.
>
> If music on the net is growing, then demand for a sound card
> (that also included a 28800 modem, also would have a greater
> market penetration.
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> >
> > [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > > As I was driving home today, I was thinking about all the
> > > technology that IBM has done that the marketing department
> has
> > > really screwed up.  I came up with these 4 examples....
> > >
> > > Do any of you out there know of others?
> > >
> > > Microchannel  Far ahead of the ISA buss, as well as the EISA
> > > buss, and only matched today with the PCI Buss.
> > >
> > > MWave         Really an engineering and software marvel.
> Actead
> > > as a sound card, and a Modeom at 33600
> > >
> > > Token Ring Lan Adapter  Only today with switching hubs can
> > > Ethernet match what Token ring did 10 years ago!
> > >
> > > OS/2.         Far ahead of Windows even today.
> > >
> > > How long will it take Gerstner to realise that IBM's
> technical
> > > prowess is second to none?  The IBM marketing dept has
> screwed
> > > up more times than any other company in any industry.  It is
> > > only the inertia of such a large company that they can
> continue,
> > > blind to the fact that they cannot market their way out of a
> wet
> > > paper bag!  Now IBM is considering slicing off all desktop
> PC
> > > production to Dell and Acer.....  however it is not the
> hardware
> > > division of IBM that is at fault but rather the marketing
> dept.
> > > In a few years IBM will be strictly a service company and no
> > > longer an innovative computer company.  Has anyone ever sent
> a
> > > message like this to Gerstner?
> > >
> > > No other company in the computer business has blown the
> > > marketing sooo badly.  Surely this must be on the minds of a
> few
> > > IBMers?
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           18-Oct-99 15:12:01
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 22:36:23
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7ufhds$vtg$[e-mail]>, on 10/18/99 at 11:21 AM,
   "(Cybiades) Peter B" <[e-mail]> said:


> Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:3809aa4b$4$obot$[e-mail]...

> Dude; what is it with you and lemmings? What did Psygnosis ever do to
> you?

I have no use for mindless imbeciles who blindly follow the leader to
their own ultimate destruction the way the vast majority of computer
owners have followed MicroSoft. I have even less use for these idiots when
the extol the virtues of a company founded on the blood of another and
advanced by theft from a third person.

Bill Gates is no more a hero and no less a thief than Willie Sutton, Jesse
James, Butch Cassidy, etc. MS was founded and originally funded by the
inventor of the Altair computer, the first 808x based machine. Gates,
Allen, and company then used the power of Gates' father's law firm to
screw him out of his just due. Then Gates stole DOS from Seattle Computer,
eventually forcing the now impoverished owner of DOS into accepting a
measly $975,000 settlement most of which went to lawyers and back bills.

Anyone who follows such a leader is as stupid as the poor Germans who
followed Hitler. Neither group is worthy of respect.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 9
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               18-Oct-99 17:47:00
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 22:36:23
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On <7udcja$[e-mail]>, on 10/17/99 at 03:46 PM,
>    "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > Sorry, but Brad's got some weight.
>
> The above quote says all one needs to know about you, Kelly. The only
> weight Brad W has is the stone between his ears.

Were you involved in any meetings with IBM over a new OS/2 client?  Brad
W. was.  Sorry, but that gives him some weight.  A lot more weight than
your opinions, for sure.

Geez... someone made me agree with KR...  :-/

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         18-Oct-99 21:32:04
  To: All                                               18-Oct-99 22:36:23
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>>>> Impossible, given that deja.com does prove that I am correct.

>>> Prove it, if you think you can.

>> Yet again?  Have you forgotten the last time already?

> What alleged "last time", Dave?

Nothing alleged about it, Eric.  Gerben Bergman did a little investigating
and confirmed that Wayne Strang won.  See
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

>>>> That's not the "actual ballot".

>>> Incorrect.

>> Feel free to demonstrate how it's allegedly incorrect, if you think
>> you can.

> Illogical,

Nothing illogical about it, Eric.

> given that the burden of proof is yours.

It's already been proven.  The burden to read the proof is yours, Eric.

>>>> Incorrect.

>>> Taking reading comprehension lessons from Eric Bennett again, Dave?

>> Obviously not.

> On what basis do you make this claim?

On the basis of the lack of any evidence showing that any such lessons
were taken from you.

>> Taking identification lessons from Bob Dole, Eric?

> Identification lessons are irrelevant.

Then why did you refer to yourself above using "from Eric Bennett"
rather than "from me"?

> I do not "approve" phrases.
> -Dave Tholen

I'm puzzled by your fascination with that statement, Eric.  Do you
take something you've written, break it up into individual phrases,
and "approve" each phrase before you make that writing available to
a larger audience?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         18-Oct-99 22:41:07
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 03:31:01
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Roberto Alsina writes:

>>>>> I wrote:

>>>>>> Jason S. wrote:

>>>>>>> Tholen was *twice* nominated for Usenet Kook of the Month -- the
>>>>>>> first time by Roberto Alsina back in 1997,

>>>>>> Alsina is the person who accused me of posting an average of 134
>>>>>> articles every day, which was ludicrous.  When he pointed to his
>>>>>> alleged evidence, it became obvious that he didn't even bother to
>>>>>> check the range of dates.  Even then, he continued to insist that
>>>>>> he was right, until others started getting on his case.  How
>>>>>> ironic that he nominated me rather than himself.

>>>>> Well, Dave, that should show you that you are not universally seen
>>>>> as the beacon of pure reason and thought you apparently think you
>>>>> are.

>>>> Illogical, given that the above historical account doesn't do
>>>> anything to contradict any assumption about what people see.

>>> As long as you claim I am not people, what you just said may make
>>> sense.

>> What I said makes sense regardless of whether I claim you are people
>> or not.  Nevertheless, given that you are not plural, you are not
>> people.

> I am part of the people.

Irrelevant, given that nothing was said about "part of the people" by me.

> Excuse my bad english.

Goes with your bad math.

> Now, if I am part of the people, let me show you why what you said
> makes no sense:

Irrelevant, given that nothing was said about "part of the people" by me.

> My claim:
> -----
> Well, Dave, [Your KOTM nomination] should show you that you are not
> universally seen as the beacon of pure reason and thought you apparently
> think you are.

I see you're inserting bracketed material to change the chronology of
what occurred.  Originally, you used "that", and the immediately
preceding material to which you were responding involved your erroneous
accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day.

> -----
> Let's break that into pieces:

Gee, some people like to complain about sentences being broken into
pieces.  Where were you when they did so?

> [a] I say you apparently think you are a beacon of pure reason and
> thought.

On what basis do you say what I appear to think, Roberto?

> [b] I say that since I don't see you as one, you are not universally
> seen as one.

And what are your reasons for not seeing me that way, Roberto?  Because
I noted a bit of history involving an embarrassing error of yours?

"Well, Roberto, that should show you that you are not universally seen
as the non-kook you apparently think you are."

> Since [a] is not a statement of fact but of my personal opinion, you can
> not deny it.

Irrelevant, given that I did not deny it.  I didn't confirm it either.
I simply noted that your statement was illogical as a response to what I
had written.

> You can however claim my opinion is wrong,

What I can do is irrelevant.  What I actually did is relevant.  Why don't
you deal with that, Roberto?

> and that you are not a beacon of pure reason and thought (BOPRAT for
> short).

Apparently you think there is no ground between those two extremes.
One can be logical while also using emotion to express, for example,
music.

> If you are not a BOPRAT, then you are accepting [b],

I haven't indicated any acceptance or non-acceptance, Roberto.  I
simply noted that your statement was illogical as a response to what
I had written.

> since you are part of the universe,

So are you, Roberto.

> and my overall premise is correct.

On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?

> But you didn't do that.

I didn't *not* do that either, Roberto.  There was neither acceptance
nor non-acceptance on my part.

> You said
> -----
> Illogical, given that the above historical account doesn't do
> anything to contradict any assumption about what people see.
> -----

I'm well aware of what I said, Roberto.

> If I am part of the people,

Nothing was said about "part of the people" by me, Roberto.

> "people" as a whole can not see you in a way different than my own.

Irrelevant, given that I never said anything about people as a whole,
Roberto.

> Part of the people may, of course, but not "people",

Illogical, given that others are "people", and you do not speak for
them, Roberto.

> which presumes a universal agreement by all parts of the
> people, of which I am one.

That's an illogical presumption, Roberto.

> Since the historical account shows that I don't see you as a BOPRAT,
> it contradicts directly an assumption that "people" see you as a
> BOPRAT.

Illogical, given that you don't speak for others, Roberto.

> That's why I said that nominating you for KOTM should
> have shown you that "people" doesn't see you as a BOPRAT,

You didn't say that, Roberto.  Rather, you used the word "that" in a
response to the immediately preceding material in which I noted your
erroneous accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day.  Your
statement didn't include any reference to a nomination.

> and thus, you should not have that assumption about how people see
> you.

On what basis do you claim that I do have that assumption, Roberto?

> Therefore, the historical account does something to contradict the
> specific assumption about people seing you as a BOPRAT,

On the contrary, my recollection of your erroneous accusation does
nothing to contradict the specific assumption, given that no
reasoning is involved.  Instead, recollection is involved.

> and your statement makes no sense.

My statement makes perfect sense, Roberto.  See above for why.

> Clear enough for you?

The illogic of your analysis is perfectly clear, Roberto.

>>>>> BTW: you were nominated for being stupid enough to argue with
>>>>> Eliza.

>>>> Incorrect.  I wasn't stupid enough to argue with Eliza.  I was
>>>> responding to a real person who was inserting responses generated
>>>> by an Eliza program.  I realized that.  Others realized that I
>>>> realized that.  You did not.  How ironic that you should mention
>>>> being "stupid enough".  Exactly how do you explain your math error
>>>> and the long delay in admitting to it?

>>> I need not explain anything to you.

>> Then explain it to the readers.

> I need not explain anything to the readers either.

Then don't blame them for whatever conclusions they might reach about
you, given your unwillingness to explain your actions.

>>> That you are still pissed about it 2 years after the fact shows you
>>> are indeed a grudgy old fellow, and that you have indeed not grown
>>> out of it.

>> Same old Alsina.  Even after I explained to you that Jason S. brought
>> you up, not me,

> I never said you brought me up.

Then why are you concluding that I'm "still pissed", given that I'm not
the one who brought you up?

> I never said Jason didn't brought me up.

Irrelevant, given that I never said that you did say that.

> Stop saying it,

I'll say whatever is necessary to make my case, Roberto.

> we all agree.

Certainly not on motives.

>> here you are, still trying to put the onus on me.

> For the things you did brought up? Yes.

But I didn't bring you up, therefore there is no onus to put on me.
So why are you trying to do so?

>> Irrelevant, given that my response does have a connection to what
>> I'm replied to.

> I can't parse that.

That's your problem, Roberto.

>> The fact that you're here, responding to me, raises
>> interesting questions about your own motivations.  Just how did you
>> manage to stumble across a reference to you in this newsgroup?

> I notice all references to me in USENET.

Really?  Do you read every single newsgroup to find references to you?
That's pretty bizarre behavior.

>>>>> PS: they weren't 134 a day,

>>>> Then why did you claim there were,

>>> Because I was wrong, Dave, just as I admitted years ago.

>> Not right away.

> Never said I did.

And you never said (logically) why it took you so long to admit it.

>>>> and why did you persist with your
>>>> claim, even after your error was clearly pointed out?

>>> For the reasons I gave in 1997.

>> Do you really think those so-called reasons are any less illogical
>> now than they were back then?

> They haven't changed.

And they're still illogical.

> Why do you expect their logic qualities to have changed?

Because I didn't expect you to persist with illogic.  Indeed, you
did come up with a new argument du jour, but it was just as illogical.

>>>>> but they sure felt like it.

>>>> That wasn't your argument at the time.  You insisted on actual
>>>> numbers back then, not feelings.

>>> It is my argument of today.

>> Ah, your argument du jour.

> Of course. Why should I use an argument of 1997?

To be consistent.  Are you now saying that you were lying back in 1997?
You used a different argument back then.  They both can't be the truth.

> Do you feel that writing in french makes you look more correct?

Irrelevant, given that I am not writing in French.

>> Interesting that your "feeling" has a precision of 134.

> Not necessarily.

Non sequitur.  I'm noting something interesting.  See below for why I
find it interesting.  Necessity has nothing to do with it.

>> Others tend to use "dozens", or "umpteen", or
>> some other non-specific term when referring to such feelings.

> I don't think I would have felt different with anything from, say,
> 100 up to 150.

Then why choose 134 rather than "a hundred"?  Tell me, Roberto, if you
were to walk to work and tell your fellow workers that you walked directly
from home to work and that you walked 36.2 kilometers, but those workers
were able to determine that in fact you lived 3.1 kilometers away, would
you continue to insist for many days that you did indeed walk 36.2
kilometers, only to change your story a couple of years later that you
only meant that it "felt like" 36.2 kilometers?

Tell me, Roberto, do you accuse someone in a restaurant of drinking
26.7 bottles of beer, only to have his table mates demonstrate that he
in fact had only consumed 2 bottles of beer, while you continue to
insist that he had really downed 26.7 bottles, only to change your story
a couple of years later that you only meant it "looked like" 26.7 bottles?

>> You were specific down to the single posting, and used flawed
>> mathematics, not feelings, to try and substantiate it.

> You are confusing 1997 and 1999.

Balderdash, Roberto.

> As you said, in 1997 I was not talking about feelings.

So, the explanation you did use was a lie.  Both explanations can't be
true.

> I am doing it now,

All that time, and you couldn't come up with a better explanation.

> and I have not substantiated it in any way,

How could you?  Can you substantiate your feelings?

> much less with flawed mathematics.

Then why did you try that approach the first time, Roberto?

>> You dug yourself into a hole back then, and I see you're doing it
>> again, in a feeble attempt to save face.

> At least I have a face to save, Dave.

Too bad you're failing at the save attempt.

>>>>> PPS: preemptive Tholen argument response: they felt like that to
>>>>> me,

>>>> Irrelevant, given that you didn't refer to feelings back then, but
>>>> instead actual numbers.

>>> In case you haven't noticed, the date of this thread is 1999.

>> I have noticed.  Of what relevence is it?  You made your error back
>> then.

> And that was not on this thread.

On the contrary, my recollection of your error is "on" this thread.

>>> What are you, some sort of librarian of ancient anger?

>> What makes you ask that?

> Curiosity.

More like illogic.

>> What are you, someone who seeks out any
>> reference to you in any newsgroup?

> Someone who has software to do that for him, actually.

But why?

>> Exactly what drew your attention
>> to this newsgroup after so long a silence?

> A reference to my name.

That reference was made by Jason S.  Why didn't you respond to him,
Roberto?

> I do it to keep track of arguments I am involved in.

Are you involved in arguments all over USENET, Roberto?

>>>>> that's subjective, personal opinion,

>>>> The numbers you referred to are not.

>>> Who's talking about that?

>> I am.  That's how to be accurate about the history.

> Then you didn't understand me.

I understood you perfectly, Roberto.

> When I said "that's subjective, personal opinion" I was not talking
> about the numbers.

Incorrect:

RA] PPS: preemptive Tholen argument response: they felt like that to
RA] me, that's subjective, personal opinion,

The subject is clearly "they", which is a reference to the average
number of articles I posted each day.

> I was talking about what I said in a recent post.

Incorrect.  You were talking about the erroneous 134 articles a day,
which you're now trying to pass off as just a "feeling".

> Therefore your response was a non sequitur.

Incorrect.  See above.

>>>>> so save it for the winter.

>>>> I'll deal with you whenever you choose to respond, Roberto.

>>> I'll deal with you whenever I have no need to be useful to society.

>> Exactly how does changing your argument (your argument du jour)
>> benefit society, Roberto?

> In no way.

Then why do it, Roberto?

> That's why I only do it when I am not needing to be useful.

But when you need to lie to try and save face.

> Reading comprehension problems, Dave?

Not at all, Roberto.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      18-Oct-99 18:30:03
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 03:31:01
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote:
: Stop blabbing every potential RUMOR and wait for something to ACTUALLY come
: onto the market.

Who are you to tell us not to talk about rumors?  If we like talking
about the rumors out there, then we will.

: Then we can praise IBM for still supporting OS/2, okay?

I really doubt that you would ever praise IBM again.

: Meanwhile, you've got some people of high rank (Brad W for example) asying
: there will be no client, and a bunvch of nobodys by comparison saying "Yo,
: IBM is setting up a team of developers..."

Who besides Brad W?

: Sorry, but Brad's got some weight.

: If or when OS/2 v5 comes out (you know IBM won't pay Paramount for use of
: the word 'warp', which is something paramount apparently wanted a year or so
: ago for no rational reason) then you can gloat and spread the word to every
: windows or linux newsgroup (avoid the apple people, they're meatheads
: through and through) and proclaim dominance because IBM still supports you.
: (when they really aren't supporting you as much as getting more money out of
: you.)

Sorry, but unlike you, we stay out of newsgroups that have no interest to us.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         18-Oct-99 23:17:14
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 03:31:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

> Well, by the prized logic of Dave Tholen, one could say DOS implements
> OS/2 functionality.

Don't try to pass off your statements as my logic, Mike.

> A typically useless statement when viewed using Tholen-logic.

That's Timbol-logic, Mike, not mine.  You obviously don't understand
logic.

> You cannot use JDK 1.1.8 to run a program designed for JDK 1.2.

That depends on whether the program uses features that were or were
not implemented in JDK 1.1.8, Mike.

I can use a FORTRAN 77 compiler to compile a program designed for
Fortran 90.  It just so happens that the FORTRAN 77 compiler
implements certain Fortran 90 features as extensions.  That doesn't
mean it can compile every program designed for Fortran 90.

You're wrong once again and are obviously trying very hard to save
face.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                      18-Oct-99 22:43:08
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 03:31:01
Subj: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])


                Word is that there were more exhibitors
                than attendees at this year's Warpstock
                rally.  Unfortunately, since this count
                is never released it's going to be one
                of those believe-it-or-not things (if
                you were there, shh!).


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         18-Oct-99 23:25:01
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 03:31:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>> Lucien writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:

>>> Feel free to reread the "costly mistakes" thread, if you're
>>> interested; it's still archived on USENET.

>> Indeed, complete with an explanation of why you're wrong, and complete
>> with your attempt to obfuscate the issue by tossing around jargon.

>>> Of course, you'll be no more capable of understanding what was
>>> going on than Tholen was.

>> It's hard to be more capable of understanding what was going go than I
>> was, because I understood quite well what was going on, including an

> Nope. You were lost the whole time.

Prove it, if you think you can.

>> understanding of your attempts to obfuscate the issue by tossing
>> around jargon.

> Wrong. You're still lost.

Prove it, if you think you can.

>> The fact that you omitted the crucial word "prevent" from your
>> first recent response demonstrates either an intentional attempt to

> Wrong.

How can you say that before one of the two possibilities even gets
mentioned?

>> deceive readers now, or that you did not understand what was going on

> Still wrong.

Prove it, if you think you can.

>> back then, which would be rather ironic, considering the comment you
>> made above.

> Still wrong...

Prove it, if you think you can.

> Quiz grade: F.

Note the complete absence of any supporting explanation.  It figures.
Same old Lucien.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         18-Oct-99 23:35:25
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 03:31:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>> Joseph wrote:

>>>>>>>> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer,
>>>>>>>> bummer.

>>>>>>> It's also bullshit.

>>>>>> Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2
>>>>>> functionality.

>>>>>>> Download something like NetBeans, that requires
>>>>>>> JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.

>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
>>>>>> implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
>>>>>> of it, however.

>>>>> On the contrary, your very own logic proves that he said exactly
>>>>> that (Re your argument from the "costly mistakes" thread of some
>>>>> years ago which you've conveniently forgotten here).

>>>> I've not forgotten anything here.  Ironically, you've forgotten
>>>> something, namely that my "very own logic" involved the usage of
>>>> "prevent", as in "prevent costly mistakes" or "prevent wild fires",
>>>> which you insisted was ambiguous.  The quotation above does not
>>>> involve anything analogous to "prevent", which is why Timbol's
>>>> interpretation is incorrect, and also why your "on the contrary"
>>>> is incorrect.

>>> Wrong.

>> Is that the best you can do?  If you really didn't forget about
>> "prevent", then why did you omit such a crucial piece of history?

Note:  no response.

>>> Go back and reread the thread to find out why.

>> Rereading the thread won't explain why you omitted the crucial word
>> "prevent" from your first response.

> It will reveal why your Java support statement is at odds with the
> argument you made 4 years ago in the "costly mistakes" thread

No, it won't.  The reason is quite clear, as I already noted:  there
is nothing analogous to "prevent" in the quotation above.

Let's use an example.  Suppose an album cover says:

   Encore!
   The New York Philharmonic
   performs works by
   Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss

Now, are you going to expect the album to include performances of the
complete works by Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss?  You shouldn't,
because there's nothing in the definition of the word "performs" to
suggest such completeness.

Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality", there is
nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to suggest that all
such functionality was implemented.

But when one writes "prevent costly mistakes", there is something in the
definition of "prevent" that does suggest all such mistakes.  As I noted
the last time we had the discussion, the definition of "prevent" includes
"to keep from happening".

You can toss around all the X bar syntax you want to obfuscate the issue.
It won't do you any good when you ignore the definitions of the words.

> (if you can follow your own argument therein, that is).

I can.  You obviously couldn't.  That's your problem, not mine.

>> I suggest you reread the thread to find out why you were wrong
>> then (and now).  You apparently need to refresh your memory about
>> certain critical portions of the argument, like the meaning of
>> "prevent".
>>
>> "Only you can prevent forest fires."
>>    --Smokey Bear
>>
>> "That's ambiguous."
>>    --Lucien

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 18-Oct-99 23:39:11
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 03:31:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7ug9q9$re5$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>> Well, by the prized logic of Dave Tholen, one could say DOS implements
>> OS/2 functionality.
>
>Don't try to pass off your statements as my logic, Mike.

That is your logic, Dave.  OS/2 can read a FAT-formatted floppy disk.
So can DOS.  Thus, DOS implements *some* functionality that OS/2 does.
Thus, by your logic, one could say that "DOS implements OS/2
functionality".

>> You cannot use JDK 1.1.8 to run a program designed for JDK 1.2.
>
>That depends on whether the program uses features that were or were
>not implemented in JDK 1.1.8, Mike.
>
>I can use a FORTRAN 77 compiler to compile a program designed for
>Fortran 90.  It just so happens that the FORTRAN 77 compiler
>implements certain Fortran 90 features as extensions.  That doesn't
>mean it can compile every program designed for Fortran 90.

Then, by your logic, one could claim that FORTRAN 77 implements
Fortran 90 functionality.  And, by your logic, you would be correct.

But any resonable person would realize that you are wrong, or that
you are butchering the language so as to make your statement
meaningless.

>You're wrong once again and are obviously trying very hard to save
>face.

I'm not wrong, Dave.  Ask a reasonable person if JDK 1.1.8 implements
JDK 1.2 functionality.  Ask a reasonable person if DOS implements
OS/2 functionality.  The answer will be no.

If the intent of the statement is that JDK 1.1.8 implements the
features found in JDK 1.1.8, why mention JDK 1.2 at all?

     - Mike

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         18-Oct-99 23:39:01
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 03:31:01
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

[e-mail] writes:

> Word is that there were more exhibitors than attendees at this year's
> Warpstock rally.

Whose word might that be?

Perhaps you'd like to comment on the Southern California OS/2 event held
last month?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         18-Oct-99 23:03:12
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 03:31:01
Subj: Re: [tholen] Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Jason S. writes:

>>>>>>> Tholen was *twice* nominated for Usenet Kook of the Month -- the first
>>>>>>> time by Roberto Alsina back in 1997,

>>>>>> Alsina is the person who accused me of posting an average of 134
articles
>>>>>> every day, which was ludicrous.  When he pointed to his alleged
evidence,
>>>>>> it became obvious that he didn't even bother to check the range of
dates.
>>>>>> Even then, he continued to insist that he was right, until others
started
>>>>>> getting on his case.  How ironic that he nominated me rather than
himself.

>>>>> None of this changes the fact that you were nominated in 1997.

>>>> It does demonstrate that person responsible did not have his facts
>>>> straight and wasn't interested in getting them straight.

>>> The critical fact -- your kookiness -- was correctly noted, Dave.

>> Incorrect, given that there isn't any on my part to note.

> ROTFLMAO

Laughing won't change the facts, Jason.

>> There is
>> some on Roberto's part, however, namely his ridiculous accusation
>> that I posted an average of 134 articles to USENET every day, and
>> his failure to admit the error even after it was demonstrated to him.

> Evidence, please.

Reread what I wrote, Jason.  Or read Roberto's recent attempt to pass
off the error as his "feelings".

>>>> Rather coincidentally, you also relied on false information in the
>>>> nomination that you prepared.

>>> I relied on actual posts of yours, for the most part.

>> What did you rely on for the rest, Jason, and just how much is "the
>> most part"?

> Let's see. The nomination was 2142 lines (not including headers),

And all you could muster was a measly 13 votes, mostly from people who
would have done anything to antagonize me with a one-line request from
you.  Talk about inefficiency!

> and 2064 of those lines were either from your posts or from Jeff Glatt's
> gallery of comments about you.

I see you didn't answer the question.  For all the readers know, the
majority could have been from Jeff Glatt.

>>>> Rather coincidentally, you also relied on false information in the
>>>> nomination that you prepared.

>>> Is that "false information," Dave?

>> The National Lampoon relied on actual statements made by Richard Nixon.
>> For example, Nixon said "I am not a crook."  Except the National
>> Lampoon left out a critical piece of information, namely "not".  They
>> thereby turned the actual statement into false information.  You used
>> a similar, though not identical, approach.

> No, because I did not alter your posts, Dave.

But you used Jeff Glatt's "gallery", Jason, which contains false
information.

>>>>>>> and the second time by me, for what turned out to be the
February/March
>>>>>>> 1998 KOTM contest (don't ask -- I don't know why). This second
nomination
>>>>>>> came in the wake of Tholen's notorious "kook and a queer" comment

>>>>>> Actually, that's the wake of your notorious attempts to "get a rise"
out
>>>>>> of me.  Put the onus where it belongs, Jason:  on you, not me.

>>>>> Typical Tholen attempt to obfuscate the *real* issue.

>>>> Noting an important historical fact that you left out is not
>>>> obfuscation.

>>> Dave, the issue is your kookiness.

>> What alleged "kookiness", Jason?  That's rather ironic, coming from
>> someone who spends time on USENET trying to "get a rise" out of
>> others.

> Prove it, if you think you can.

You admitted to trying to "get a rise" out of me, Jason.  Do you now
intend to deny it?

>>>>>>> There was no evidence of tampering

>>>>>> Incorrect.  The voting deadline was extended,

>>>>> ..which is not evidence of tampering...

>>>> Prove that the outcome was not affected by the deadline extension.

>>> The burden to prove that the extension affected the outcome lies on
>>> your shoulders, Dave. You made a claim: back it up.

>> You're the one claiming that the results of the ballot should be
>> believed, Jason.  The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.

> Dave, you are the only one challenging the validity of the results.

Irrelevant, Jason.  The number of challenges cannot logically be used
as a measure of a result's validity.

> Prove it, if you think you can.

Why should I prove your claim about the number of challenges, Jason?

>>>>>> and I know that at least one vote wasn't counted.

>>>>> ..for a person who wasn't nominated,

>>>> Which makes the fact that you received a vote even more significant.

>>> Which explains why it wasn't counted.

>> It does no such thing.  Rather, it demonstrates more evidence of
>> tampering.

> Hardly.

Where were your votes tabulated, Jason?

> Reread the rules, Dave.

The rules don't define what constitutes tampering, Jason.

>>>>> so the alleged vote was a nullity.

>>>> On the contrary, your actions earned you that vote.  Too bad the
>>>> significance is lost on you.

>>> Even assuming arguendo that someone did vote for me, you got more
>>> than enough votes to win.

>> Prove that you didn't get more, Jason.  Your actions certainly
>> earned the disdain of several people in sci.astro.

> You made the claim -- prove it, if you think you can, Dave.

I have no idea how many votes you actually earned, Jason.  Your vote
total wasn't reported.

>>>>>>> Tholen claimed that someone named "Wayne Strang" (who was not even
>>>>>>> nominated)

>>>>>> Incorrect.  Consult deja.com for proof.

>>>>> Dave, the ballot has been reposted repeatedly.

>>>> The result showing Wayne Strang's election was reposted.

>>> Do you mean the post by the December 1997 Kook of the Month that
>>> declared "Wayne Strang" to be the unanimous winner?

>> I mean the post showing that Wayne Strang won.

> You mean the post from the December 1997 Kook of the Month.

I mean the post showing that Wayne Strang won.

>>> Odd, since you claim that I got a vote, and I know that you got at
>>> least one vote yourself.

>> That was a different, unofficial, "tongue-in-cheek", tampered with,
>> ballot, Jason.

> That was the official ballot, Dave, as Kevin explained to you.

On what basis do you call it the "official" ballot, Jason?  On what
basis does Kevin call it the "official" ballot?

>>>>> "Wayne Strang" (whoever that is) was not on it.

>>>> Incorrect.

>>> Reference?

>> Deja.com.

> Why not cite "the whole world" as your reference, Dave?

Because that's not the correct reference, Jason.

>>>>> Now, it is possible that a nomination was made,

>>>> More than just possible.  One was indeed made.

>>> Prove it, if you think you can.

>> See the above-mentioned posting, Jason.

> Which posting, Dave?

The posting in which Wayne Strang was announced the winner, Jason.
Surely you know about it, given your reference to some December 1997
winner.

>>>>> but the rules require a second, and it appears that no second was made
--
>>>>> thus, he was not properly nominated under the rules.

>>>> Then how did he manage to win?

>>> He didn't, Dave.

>> Incorrect, Jason.

> He didn't win, Dave.

Incorrect, Jason.

>>>>>>> won the election and complained that a vote cast by some unnamed
person
>>>>>>> allegedly for me was not counted.

>>>>>> You want actual names, Jason?

>>>>> Provide it, if you think you can.

>>>> I said "names", Jason, not "name", thus your use of "it" is
>>>> inappropriate.

>>> Provide them, if you think you can.

>> Having memory problems, Jason?  Deja.com can help.

> Typical Tholen evasion.

Not at all, Jason.

>>>>>> Check the people who criticized you for
>>>>>> your "campaigning" in sci.astro.

>>>>> Are you alleging that these alleged people voted for me, Dave?

>>>> The people are not alleged, Jason.  You quickly left sci.astro after
>>>> you were criticized multiple times.  Consult deja.com if you can't
>>>> remember their names.

>>> I was never subscribed to sci.astro, Dave, so it is illogical to
>>> claim that I "left" that group.

>> You posted to sci.astro, Jason.  You then disappeared after receiving
>> considerable criticism.  It is therefore not illogical to claim that
>> you left.

> In your little world of "logic," I suppose.

You may think that a brief visit doesn't constitute going there, but
that's you.

>>>>>> As for the person who contacted me
>>>>>> privately to say that he voted for you, just what do you think the
>>>>>> word "privately" means?

>>>>> I imagine that it means that this alleged person allegedly sent you
>>>>> an email.

>>>> It means that I won't betray a confidence, Jason.

>>> ..preferring to make typical Tholen unsubstantiated claims.

>> On the contrary, the vote counter has the substantiation, Jason.

> Do you mean Robbie Honerkamp, Dave?

I mean the vote counter, Jason.

>>>>>>> Tholen conveniently disregarded the fact that I was not nominated in
>>>>>>> making this complaint.

>>>>>> Doesn't change the fact that you received at least one vote, and quite
>>>>>> possibly more, perhaps even the most.

>>>>> And perhaps you were on the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963, Dave.

>>>> Non sequitur.

>>> Whatever.

>> Typical Jason S.

> Typical Tholen.

Yes, I do typically identify non sequitur comments, such as yours.

>>>>>>> The second KOTM title that Dave won

>>>>>> I haven't won any, Jason.

>>>>> Incorrect.

>>>> Still trying to foist your unofficial, "tongue-in-cheek", tampered
>>>> results on the unsuspecting reader, eh Jason?

>>> I simply refer to the poll that was taken by someone other than me
>>> in CSMA earlier this year. They're not "my" results.

>> Also tampered with.  You and Edwin had thousands of votes that
>> disappeared.

> Because the people who ran the polling site detected and corrected
> the tampering problem, I believe.

What you believe is irrelevant, Jason.  What you can prove is relevant.

>>>>>>> was started by someone calling himself "ZnU" who frequents
>>>>>>> comp.sys.mac.advocacy. This person set up a CSMA Kook poll on one
>>>>>>> of those polling websites that will run impromptu polls for anyone.
>>>>>>> There were about 15 candidates (chosen arbitrarily by "ZnU") and
>>>>>>> Tholen won the vote.

>>>>>> Incorrect.  You and Edwin both had thousands of votes that disappeared.

>>>>> ..and the technical problems with the polling were straightened out
>>>>> by the people who run that site.

>>>> Evidence, please.

>>> The fact that the persons who were tampering with the vote (running up
>>> thousands of votes for me and Edwin) apparently could no longer run
>>> up the vote to such an extent speaks for itself.

>> How would you know whether those people even attempted to tamper with
>> the vote after the alleged technical problems were straightened out?

> How do you know they didn't?

I don't need to know, Jason.

> Were you one of them, Dave?

I have no emotional need to waste time on such a useless activity, Jason.

>>>>>> And from Eric Bennett:

>>>>>> ] The other poll (csma KOTM) was not well protected against vote fraud.
 I
>>>>>> ] had an amusing evening playing with their vote counting system to see
if I
>>>>>> ] could get around their belatedly instituted safeguards (which I
did...

>>>>> ..and Eric voted for Nathan A. Hughes, not for you, Dave.

>>>> Irrelevant, Jason.  It demonstrates that the poll was not protected
>>>> against fraud.

>>> No vote is completely protected against fraud, Dave.

>> Prove it, if you think you can, Jason.  I was in a meeting last night
>> in which votes were taken.  Eyes were open and hands were raised.
>> Anyone could verify the count.

> And could anyone verify that none of the voters had been bribed, Dave?

There was no time for bribery, Jason.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 18-Oct-99 23:51:26
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 03:31:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7ugasn$re5$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality", there is
>nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to suggest that all
>such functionality was implemented.

Except that there is.  If you claim to implement a standard, then it is
assumed that you implement the entire standard.  Any other interpretation
conveys no useful information.

The Integer class is part of the Java 1.2 standard.  But you cannot claim
that you implement Java 1.2 functionality simply because you've implemented
the Integer class.

     - Mike

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      19-Oct-99 12:21:11
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:28
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Seems to happen as soon as some linvocate hits his frustration level with
being exposed as a liar one too many times. Can't say as I've seen that
happen to a NT advocate...

Chad Mulligan <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:7ugskt$kfm$[e-mail]...
> Godwin's Principle.
>
> Drestin Black wrote in message ...
> >Say, isn't there some "law" that claims that after a while someone will
> >mention Hitler or the nazi's?
> >
> <snip>
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @home (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          19-Oct-99 08:06:28
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:28
Subj: (1/2) Re: IBM re-evaluating consumer PC business

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Bennie Nelson
> >>>>>>>the Win32 specifications have at
> >>>>>>>least one major dichotomy:  if a Win 32 executable requires a VxD
> >>>>>>>driver, then it will not execute on NT.
>
> >> >>>> Huh?? What Win32 executables require a VxD driver? You don't link
> >> >>>> Win32 apps with drivers. you know. It's not like a DLL.
>
> >> >> >> Oh christ, I'm talking programming issues with a typical OS/2
enduser.
> >> >> >> It's hopeless, I know. They *never* learn any of this stuff. They
just
> >> >> >> spout half-baked nonsense based upon other uninformed hearsay.
>
> >> >> >Win32 software written for hardware that is supported by VxD drivers
> >> >> >will not work in NT.
>
> >> >> It is not part of the "Win32 specifications" to produce "software
> >> >> [specifically] written for hardware [drivers]". (Not that I believe
> >> >> that you even have the slightest idea what you're talking about. I'm
> >> >> sure that you're simply tossing around some buzz phrases that you once
> >> >> heard some other OS/2 nutcase rambling about Windows, and thought that
> >> >> it made for lovely sounding FUD). Indeed, it is part of the "Win32
> >> >> specifications" to produce software that is hardware independent. The
> >> >> reason why there are things called "drivers" is to make that so.
> >> >> Obviously, this most basic programming concept has gone completely
> >> >> over your head.
>
> >> >Are you saying that you are unaware of the restrictions placed upon
> >> >developers by MS?
>
> >If I had written the answer below and Jeff had written the question above,
> >Jeff would have come back with "note, no answer."
>
> That's because your question isn't even remotely related to the
> discussion. That is what I pointed out, and yet another thing which
> obviously went over your head. MS places no alleged restrictions upon
> Win32 programmers to write Win32 software that only works with certain
> drivers, despite your fumbling FUD otherwise.

This is hilarious.  Especially because you seem to really believe it.

>
> >> Oh this is precious. A technically-illiterate OS/2 *enduser*
> >> attempting to lecture programmers upon what MS does and doesn't
> >> provide to developers.
>
> >You've done quite a job of filling in a personal description of me with
> >so little information. Quite a work of fiction you have going there, too.
> >You'll criticize me as "illiterate" and you are willing to denigrate my
> >character and abilities when you are quite ignorant of what I am like and
> >what my abilities are.
>
> I do not need any more information than what you've already supplied
> to dismiss your allegations about Win32 programming issues to be
> erroneous and uninformed. You aired your FUD here, and I addressed it.

There's a lot of FUD in this thread, but it has Jeff Glatt written all
over it.

> That's what has happened. If you don't want people to point out how
> little you know, then stop demonstrating your ignorance by making
> uninformed, erroneous statements.
>
> >> >VxDs, which are supported by Win 9x, are not
> >> >supported in NT, period.
> >>
> >> And this has exactly what to do with your statements such as "if a Win
> >> 32 executable requires a VxD driver, then it will not execute on NT."
> >> or "Win32 software written for hardware that is supported by VxD
> >> drivers will not work on NT"??
>
> >Some Win32 software is written for hardware that is accessed via a VxD
> >type device driver.
>
> What software? Name specific titles. I have yet to see any such title
> (unless it's some esoteric, vertical market app that ships with its
> own hardware and device driver, for whatever reason. This is NOT even
> remotely a typical Win32 application. These are Win32 programs that
> inflict their own limitations upon themselves, not due to any alleged
> Win32 design "dichotomy").

Not true.  You keep denying the existence of the dichotomy, but it is real.
Try reading the article at:

http://www.zdnet.com/windows/stories/main/0,4728,2158684,00.html

This article makes the same points I have been trying to make:

1) Win 9x and NT are competing and are not completely compatible; and
2) MS has promised and has been trying to merge the code base into one
product.


>
> >Some hardware manufacturers bundle their own applications
> >with the hardware. Example: sound card with midi and audio applications.
>
> Oh brother. The more you talk about this stuff, the more it becomes
> obvious that you don't know what you're talking about,
>
> Often, the bundled programs shipping with specific hardware are
> designed not to work with other hardware and software not due to any
> alleged limitation of Win32, nor any supposed "dichotomy", despite
> your woefully uninformed and misguided FUD, but rather because the
> manufacturer doesn't want anyone to use the bundled software with some
> other company's hardware. So the code specifically doesn't run with
> other hardware/drivers.
>
> Here's how it works. When Creative Labs developed Vienna, their DLS
> app for CL cards that support sample uploading, they made sure that
> the programmers added some checks to verify that the guy actually has
> a CL card and isn't trying to use CL bundled software with some other
> brand of sound card.
>
> It's the same reason why OS/2 Sound Blaster drivers made by CL don't
> work with "SB compatible" cards.

None of this discussion has the slightest validity in disproving my
point.  I didn't offer the rationale behind proprietary bundling of
software and hardware, I simply stated that such practices occur in
the industry.  You're FUDing the issue by trying to argue against a
point I did not make: namely, that MS via the Win32 specs forced the
proprietary bundling practices upon the industry.

>
> You'd know this *if* you knew what you were talking about. The fact
> that you apparently believe that it is the operating system itself
> which has restricted this software from working with other hardware
> and drivers underscores your ignorance of these matters. The fact that
> you actually think such an example supports your allegation that "the
> Win32 specifications have at least one major dichotomy", "Win32
> software written for hardware that is supported by VxD drivers will
> not work on NT", etc, is testiment to how little you understand the
> topic upon which you're spreading FUD. (Incidentally, it's not really
> the VxD that is even restricting this bundled software from working
> with other hardware. But then, you don't know about these things).

I do understand it, Jeff.  You've missed the point completely.  VxDs
are not supported in NT because MS decreed it so.  That is one of the
major differences in the two competing flavors of Win 32 bit architectures:
Win 9x and Windows NT.  Windows NT v5 (may it rest in peace) and Win 2000
were supposed to lead the masses to the land of unified Windows 32 bit
processing.  MS has repeatedly promised this (again, I refer you to the
above URL).  They haven't delivered.

You have denied that MS has promised this, but the article I have cited
states explicitly that the promise has been made repeatedly.  You have
not cited one source, credible or otherwise, that backs up your position:
namely, that MS has never promised to merge Win 9x and Windows NT into
one product line instead of the current situation where there are two
competing and somewhat incompatible product lines.

>
> Those same people have made such things for OS/2. Does that constitute
> proof that there is a dichotomy in the design of OS/2 itself because
> you can get an OS/2 application that won't work with every driver out
> there.
>
> In fact, there are some OS/2 apps that are made for RTMIDI and don't
> work with MMPM, and vice versa. Is IBM "restricting" OS/2 programmers
> as a result? Apparently so, according to your FUD.

IBM did not release two product lines for OS/2 where one supports RTMIDI
and the other MMPM.  Again, your FUD doesn't work.

>
> >> Win32 executables are *not* VxDs. (Do you even know what a VxD is? For
> >> laughs, we should hear you explain to us what it is, and what it does.
> >> I'm sure that would be a riot!) And Win32 executables are hardware
> >> independent (unless you're talking about some specialized vertical app
> >> that is specifically written to work with only one, particular driver,
> >> for whatever reason. But that isn't even close to being a typical
> >> Win32 app. Indeed, that's the sort of app that not only DOESN'T MS
> >> "restrict" developers to writing, as you apparently misbelieve, but
> >> actually recommends strongly against).
>
> >> Nevertheless, like so many other typical OS/2 Zealots, your FUD is as
> >> behind the times as the aging niche product you seek to promote.
> >> You've apparently never even heard of the Windows Driver Model.
> >> Typical.
>
> >Why did Microsoft create that?
>
> It's part of Windows NT. You'd know that *if* you knew anything about
> this subject... and clearly you don't.

It was a rhetorical question, Jeff.  The point being that it proves my
assertions that MS is trying to move Win 9x and NT to the same code base.
WDM is part of that effort.

>
> You don't even know whether you're talking about Win32 executables, or
> drivers, or hardware issues, or what -- you're so completely confused
> in your FUD.
>
> >And why did MS pledge to merge Win 9x
> >and NT into one common platform?
>
> MS never pledged that. MS only said that Win NT would eventually
> supercede Win9x, just like Win9X and WinNT have long since superceded
> OS/2 in both MS' product line as well as the marketplace.

FUD.

>
> >Precisely because of the incompatibilities
> >between Win 9x and NT.  And why is MS having such a tough time achieving
> >the common code base for Windows?
>
> MS isn't. Whereas MS is still developing Win9x and WinNT, IBM has
> pretty much given up developing OS/2, even after abandoning the OS/2
> API in favor of JAVA. Apparently, it is IBM who is having trouble
> achieving a code base.

FUD.  Win 9x is dead.  NT is dead.  MS is working on Windows 2000.

>
> >Because the consumers would have to
> >ditch a lot of investments in software that currently runs on Win 9x that
> >wouldn't be supported.  And much of that software would be Win32 software.
>
> FUD. My Win32 software runs fine upon both Win9x and WinNT. It's my
> OS/2 software that I had to throw out because it wouldn't run on an OS
> that I wanted to use.

Your anecdotal evidence from your own experience certainly does not translate
into a unifying and universal description for the experiences of all Windows
users everywhere.  You chose to throw out OS/2 and the apps it runs.  Most
users don't want to throw out the apps they use.  Hence, MS is having to
deal with the issue of backwards compatibity.  They tried to force users
into upgrading to Office 97 by breaking backward compatibility with Office
95.  It didn't work.  The user base raised such a stink that MS had to
release an update that restored file compatibility with the prior Office
products.

>
> >> The only real "dichotomy" here is between reality and your idea of
> >> what reality is.
>
> >The real dichotomy is between Win 9x and NT.
>
> I'm sure you've deluded yourself into thinking so, but as one can see
> from your posts, it certainly isn't based upon any sound knowledge of
> technical issues, nor even anything remotely resembling what is
> actually happening in the software industry.

FUD.  The article I've referenced says exactly what I've been saying here.
You have not offered one shred of supporting documentation to support your
claims.

>
> >> >> As a person who has written both Win32 application software as well as
> >> >> drivers, I could explain to you how this all works, but I have
> >> >> absolutely no confidence that you'd be able to understand much of it,
> >> >> and worse, I strongly believe that your somewhat-unnatural "love" for
> >> >> OS/2 will blind you into believing nothing but the worst possible,
> >> >> least realistic FUD about Windows, some of which you're spewing right
> >> >> now.
>
> >While not necessary, I will insert a little personal history.  In 1988, I
> >taught myself how to program in x86 assembler.
>
> Been there, done that -- both for 680x0 and 80x86.
>
> But frankly, I seriously doubt the veracity of your alleged
> qualifications. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that you've written
> so much as a "Hello World" program, and the lack of knowledge you've
> exhibited here upon matters concerning drivers is appalling.

Well, since it has been clearly shown that you have made statements that
are totally refuted by the facts, it would seem that your judgement here
is, at best, questionable.  I told you the truth.  You simply refuse to
accept it.  Since, I'm offering my own experiences, your refusal to accept
them is your problem, and not mine.

>
> >The reason?  I wanted to
> >write a real time MIDI program and needed an MPU401 device driver. The MIDI
> >program and device driver were written in assembler for performance
reasons.
> >The program generated harmony in real time based upon the notes played on a
> >MIDI capable instrument. This was no simple program, either.
>
> In that case, since you allegedly wrote an "MPU401 driver" (and unlike
> your bogus claim of such, *my* MPU401 device driver is out there in
> public distribution and its existence/performance can be verified),
> you should be able to easily tell me: What are the modes that the
> MPU401 supports, and what does each entail?

I chose the UART mode because that best suited the realtime app that I was
developing.  Play/record didn't fit as well as the real time mode.  The
Voyetra
OP4001 that I used had what Voyetra termed Intelligent UART mode).  I learned
how it worked via DEBUG.  I used the "A" command to enter the assembler
instructions and then I used "G" to run the code.  By using the "IN" and
"OUT" assembler instructions and a MIDI synthesizer attached to the card,
I learned how to control the card.  Also, using DEBUG, I taught myself how
MIDI works: for example, what transpires when a key is pressed (hex values
for note on, MIDI channel, which note, touch sensitivity) and released (note
off, etc).

>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          19-Oct-99 08:06:28
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:28
Subj: (2/2) Re: IBM re-evaluating consumer PC business

> >I would welcome the opportunity to have a decent technical exchange with
> >you. You have consistently shown your inability to do so.
>
> That's ironic being that you have exhibited numerous inaccuracies in
> your allegations about supposed Win32 software dependence upon
> specific device drivers, and I have detailed exactly why you're wrong,
> citing specific examples (such as Vienna) to rebut your groundless
> accusations. You have then followed this up with nothing except yet
> more of your nebulous and inaccurate misassumptions about these
> topics, devoid of *any* evidence to back up your specious claims.
>
> Obviously, you're not interested in doing anything except spreading
> FUD about Win32.

You've not shown one mistake I've made.  I've documented all of my points
using external references.  You've offered none.

>
> >Instead you've
> >repeatedly revealed the weakness of your positions by resorting to personal
> >attacks and insults. If your technical positions were worth anything, you
> >wouldn't have to try to disguise them with such drivel.
>
> Again, ironic being that I have addressed your misguided tripe
> concerning Win32, only to hear you spout yet more drivel, devoid of
> *any* evidence to backup your bogus claims.
>
> >> >You have yet to disprove anything I have said.  Submit a URL that
> >> >shows how one goes about installing in NT any Win32 software requiring
> >> >one or more VxDs.
> >>
> >> Again. You don't know what you're talking about. Win32 software
> >> doesn't require "one or more VxDs". Win32 software is platform
> >> independent. Go to my web site and you can download plenty of programs
> >> that I've personally written which run under both NT and 95/98. Not
> >> only that, they work with a WIDE VARIETY OF DRIVERS AND HARDWARE.
> >> These are programs which do extensive I/O through drivers. (Do you
> >> know what I/O is, Bennie?) And yet, they are still hardware dependent.
> >> Fortunately, I know how to write Win32 programs which you appear to
> >> erroneously believe are impossible to write, or exceptions to the
> >> rule, or which programmers are restricted from writing by MS, and any
> >> of the other technically-illiterate FUD you OS/2 zealots like to toss
> >> around indiscriminately and blindly.
> >>
> >> My own software disproves your allegations about NT and Win32 and
> >> Windows drivers, etc. And I'm hardly the only programmer who writes
> >> Win32 stuff that runs on both NT and Win95/98. There are *lots* of
> >> such Win32 programmers and programs. You just don't know about them
> >> because you're hopelessly out of touch with the reality of Win32. You
> >> apparently live in this nightmare dreamworld where you can't install a
> >> Win32 application unless you have some sort of VxD mysteriously
> >> written for that specific application.
> >>
> >> You're loony. Your FUD is loony. The mere fact that you think such
> >> ridiculous claims of yours need to be disproven is testament to how
> >> far out of touch you are with reality.
> >>
> >> >> (not that I expect you to get any more specific than your laughably
> >> >> nebulous, unsubstantiated claim that there is something "eerie" about
> >> >> the "Win32 specification" regarding VxDs). And I'll likely make you
> >> >> look like the technically illiterate fool that so many OS/2 zealots
> >> >> are nowadays
> >>
> >> >Actually, I'll give MS credit for NOT supporting VxDs in NT.  They
> >> >are a source of instability and numerous "blue screen" crashes in
> >> >Win 9x.  But, on the other hand, this situation does cause some
> >> >confusion for those who want to use Win 32 software.  Not all Win32
> >> >software that runs in Win 9x will run in NT.
> >>
> >> Hahahahah! Actually that is true. And by "explaining" why you think
> >> that's so, you reveal how technically ignorant you truly are.
> >>
> >> The reason why some (actually, few -- mostly game software that uses
> >> DirectX versions higher than 3.0 -- and that will change with NT 5)
> >> Win32 software that runs in Win9X doesn't run in NT has ABSOLUTELY
> >> NOTHING TO DO WITH DRIVERS.
>
> >You are incorrect here.
>
> No, I'm not. Just because you would like to believe so, and even utter
> the words, doesn't make me incorrect.

Then cite a reference that I can look up for myself.  I don't mind being
proven wrong.  In fact, I prefer to know the truth than stubbornly insist
I know it all.  Because, I freely admit that I don't.

>
> I've already shown numerous specific examples that counter your
> specious claims about Win32, and cited the existence of many more
> examples being that I'm talking about typical Win32 software whereas
> you appear to be talking about some program that you once found
> bundled with your sound card.

Misapplied examples that did not address the points I have been making.

>
> >> As I said before, I *could* explain all of this to you, but I doubt
> >> that you'd understand much of it, and worse, I believe that, due to
> >> your zealous "love" for OS/2, you would deliberately choose not to
> >> believe anything but the worst possible FUD about Windows, regardless
> >> of how little resemblance to reality it bears (such as your above
> >> statements about Win32 executables. Out to lunch, you are).
>
> >> >The court records for the trial contain testimony that disproves
> >> >your statement.
>
> >> So you erroneously assume.
>
> >And you've offered no proof to the contrary.  Try this URL:
>
> >http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014850,00.html
>
> Yep. It's all the hearsay of an IBM rep, contrary to your allegation
> that MS made such statements about licensing stipulations.

It's testimony from a trial.  If it is not true and the witness was lying,
then the witness committed perjury.  I don't believe the witness was lying.
You can simply wave your hand and make it go away for you, but my point is
supported by testimony from the trial.

>
> >This article tells how Gary Norris explains to the court that MS did
> >not allow IBM access to Win 95 until 15 minutes before the midnight
> >launch of Win 95 on August 24th, 1995.  Why? Because IBM would not
> >agree to cut back shipments of OS/2 and replace them with Windows.
>
> So this IBM rep alleges.
>
> But MS reps say otherwise.

Please supply a URL for MS testimony in the trial that contradicts and
disproves Mr. Norris' testimony.

>
> Nevertheless, you've seen fit to spread inaccurate FUD indicating that
> it was MS who stated these stipulations. It isn't. It's an IBM rep
> stating that MS stated these stipulations. There's an important
> difference. It's an IBM rep, and frankly, I haven't found them to be
> all that trustworthy, especially the ones who deal with
> sales/licensing/promotion.

How is it FUD to repeat a witness' testimony?

>
> >> But then, that appears to be how you "determined" what causes a
> >> particular Win32 program not to run under NT. You sure as hell didn't
> >> arrive at your deduction by gleaning it from proper, technical
> >> documentation.
> >>
> >> And now, you're just looking more and more silly and uninformed as you
> >> pursue a technical discussion that is clearly over your head
>
> >You are just as mistaken about this as you are about the testimony
> >at the MS vs DOJ trial.  If you need any further assistance finding
> >the facts, just ask.  I've got other URLs that also support my position.
>
> In fact, the above URL proves that you're relying strictly upon
> hearsay from people who have a vested interest in attacking a major
> competitor.

Keep repeating the word hearsay.  Keep telling yourself that, Jeff.  It's
only hearsay, it's only hearsay.  It's TESTIMONY.  MS attorneys had the
opportunity in court to rebut it, and did not.

>
> I expect that your ideas about Win32 are gotten from the same sources,
> because those ideas clearly are not based upon Win32 technical
> literature nor programming experience

Well, Jeff, URLs are wonderful things.  You haven't supplied even one to
support any point you have made.  You reject my words and the words of
others published on the Internet by large media firms.  Give me a hint,
who other than Jeff Glatt is an authority in such matters?

Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                              19-Oct-99 13:08:10
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:28
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Chad Myers" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380b2a4d$7$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <7ue56e$9fipg$[e-mail]>, on 10/18/99 at 04:45 PM,
>    "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]> said:
>
>
> 1. It takes the MS dialer 1 minute 4 seconds to connect to my
> ISP or 9 others I have tested with using Win 9x. It takes less
> than 8 seconds using OS/2, DOS, or Win 3.1 This has been confirmed
> by four of the ISP's as a chronic problem with Win 9x.

Wow, that's funny, because I've used Win3.1 (with Trumpet), Win95,
Win98, and NT 4.0 to connect to about 30 different ISPs in my
career and I have never once experienced what you're talking about.

The only time Win9x or NT took longer than it was supposed to for
dialing is when I made an error in the login script
(wait for 'logon' when it should've been login, it just waits
forever)

It sounds more like your ISPs equipment is faulty, or you don't
have Win9x or the modem configured properly.  I have seen Modems
duke it out to reach X2, K56Flex, and/or v.90 and they spend
minutes like you say trying to reach a compatible protocol.

You should try disabling all but V.90, or K56flex. Hell, try it
at 28.8 and see what happens. If it's fast, then you know it's
your modem, their modem or the phone line.

> 2. Win 95 and 98 both fail to properly recognize or set up the IDE
> Busmastering of Tyan motherboards when a PNP NIC is also in the
> system.

Sounds like Tyan's busmastering drivers, not Win9x.  I have a tyan
MOBO and NT/2K and a PNP NIC and busmastering is working.

> 3. Win 95 and 98 both fail to heed the setting in Hardware
> Manager to remove my Wangtek SCSI tape drive from the profile and
> consistently place it back with a Bang.

Ah... this is user failure.  It's auto-detecting the hardware again.
You either need to disable it, or load the proper drivers,
otherwise, Win9x will keep detecting it incorrectly and loading the
wrong driver.

> 4. With USRobotics V.90 PNP Internal modems (not the winmodem
> version) both insist in installing a "standard" modem on the same
> port as the USR modem. Removing it only slows the next boot while it
> reports it found new hardware and is installing drivers for it.

Win9x doesn't detect the newer modems correctly sometimes (especially
USR, for some reason).  Remove the Standard Modem (don't reboot) and
then load the USR modem drivers.

> 5. Applying on-line updates to a machine with non-MS partitions
> farkles the partition table and MBR of the hard drive on my ThinkPad
> 390E. I reported this to the OS/2 support group at IBM and was told
> that they had reported it to MS without response.

I find that one hard to believe. On-line updates? You mean, the
Windows Update?  Which one in particular did this?

This sounds like a ThinkPad thing.  IBM is notorious for having
oddities like this.

> One of the other two was a problem with Netware and setting up the
> network administration which Novell also complained to MS about. I
> forget the exact nature of the problem.

Novell's software for Windows is horrible and broken. Any problems
you have with it would, without a doubt, be something broken in
Novell's code (Examples? Client32, Intranetware Client, NetWare
Administrator, NWADMIN32, etc)

> In addition, MS continues to warn that Boot Manager will not work once Win
> 9x is installed which is pure bullshit. The readme does tell one how to
> reactivate BM or LILO, etc., but
>
> Moreover, when one selects dial up networking only, one gets, in addition
> to TCP/IP, NetBuei and another protocol as well as MS CHAP authentication
> which most ISP's do not support. I believe I reported this one, but may
> not have bothered. This prevents users from properly connecting to their
> existing ISP's and leads many to subscribing to MSN.

No, again... there go the conspiracy whackos...
The reason for this is that most corporations use DUN to connect to
corporate NT networks for RAS.  In this case, MSCHAP is the best protocol.
It it VERY easy to switch to PAP or something else and many ISPs have
walk throughs or scripts that set this up automatically.

You are just grasping at straws now.

If you were attempting to say that Linux is better because of these few
exaggerated (or completely false) examples, then you have not a foot
to stand on because Linux is in much worse shape than this.

Chad


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 13:34:22
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:28
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Garrett
Molpus) writes:

Thank you for volunteering. I very much enjoyed WarpStock 99 and
was very impressed by the number and quality of speakers from
IBM. If there was any doubt about IBM's commitment to OS/2 before
the conference it was gone by Sunday. I walked away with the
realization that there is no longer a need to distinguish computers
by the designation of client or server. Both of those old concepts
have been replaced by what is called Network Computing. The 1999
Version of OS/2 is simply awesome. It is especially awesome given the
fact that it includes technology that I am certain IBM marketing
personnel had reserved for other products. I am talking about technology
that appeared reserved for 62 bit and non intel processors. Obviously
one or more large OS/2 user drove IBM to release the new OS/2 which
now has the confusing name of Warp Server for e business. This
OS has infinite scaling possibilities. In fact by using what use to be
called a client as something like an additional SMP processor it
is feasible to build a supercomputer with the 1999 edition of OS/2.
IBM was customer driven by this release. There was no need or
support from marketing. This product has a substantial amount
of new code and challenges AIX in the web server arena. I thought
there were more people at WarpStock 99 than at WarpStock 98 but
a lot of them may have been taking advantage of the free exhibit
hall.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm
in process of massive updates.



>I was at Warpstock - as a volunteer. I've helped at a *lot* of SF/F
>cons - (which is why I volunteered - there is ALWAYS a need for
>Volunteers) and have developed an eye to "counting the house".
>
>    At the last raffle session (6:30 PM approx), the room count
>was at 125 - 150. I looked at the ticket roll after I made my
>estimate, and saw that the tick spool was at xxx120 (my ticket was
>xxx102).
>
>Earlier major meetings (Keynote address, earlier raffle sessions, The
>Con Party) had had close to 250. Since the Sunday Raffle was the last
>official event, I was not surprised to see the reduced attendance
>(which was a smaller reduction than what I've seen at Trek cons.)
>
>As an example, on Saturday I stood security at the exhibition hall as
>vendors did final setup and prep. I had to turn away 50+ people who
>wanted to get in early - a (from experience) high percentage of the
>attendee population.
>
>All-in-all a well run, successful convention for the available
>attendee population. I'm glad I went.
>
>
>On 18 Oct 1999 23:39:02 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
>wrote:
>
>>[e-mail] writes:
>>
>>> Word is that there were more exhibitors than attendees at this year's
>>> Warpstock rally.
>>
>>Whose word might that be?
>>
>>Perhaps you'd like to comment on the Southern California OS/2 event held
>>last month?
>>
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Richard G. Molpus
>No Profit to high, No quote to ridiculous.
>Ask Me about my Anti-Microsoft bias!
>Praise BOB! or send him $30.00 anyway.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          19-Oct-99 10:01:22
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:29
Subj: (1/2) Re: IBM re-evaluating consumer PC business

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>Bennie Nelson
> >> >> >>>Win32 software written for hardware that is supported by VxD
drivers
> >> >> >>>will not work in NT.
>
> >> >> >>jglatt
> >> >> >> It is not part of the "Win32 specifications" to produce "software
> >> >> >> [specifically] written for hardware [drivers]". (Not that I believe
> >> >> >> that you even have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
I'm
> >> >> >> sure that you're simply tossing around some buzz phrases that you
once
> >> >> >> heard some other OS/2 nutcase rambling about Windows, and thought
that
> >> >> >> it made for lovely sounding FUD). Indeed, it is part of the "Win32
> >> >> >> specifications" to produce software that is hardware independent.
The
> >> >> >> reason why there are things called "drivers" is to make that so.
> >> >> >> Obviously, this most basic programming concept has gone completely
> >> >> >> over your head.
>
> >> >> >Marty
> >> >> >I think what he was trying to get at was the fact that there were
> >> >> >historically, if not currently, several device drivers that existed
only
> >> >> >in VxD form and therefore would not work in NT.
>
> >> >> That's a driver issue, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Win32
> >> >> applications. For example, the Win32 program that I just wrote will do
> >> >> MIDI output upon both NT as well as Win95. But, it will use entirely
> >> >> different drivers upon both platforms. For that matter, it will use
> >> >> entirely different drivers for different MIDI interfaces even under
> >> >> the same operating system. That's because a properly written Windows
> >> >> application is hardware independent. Bennie doesn't know this.
>
> >> >> Obviously, Bennie really doesn't know what he's talking about when he
> >> >> uttered the quote about "Win32 software written for hardware that is
> >> >> supported by VxD drivers", nor the technical considerations of such
> >> >> issues.
>
> >> >Actually, I know whereof I speak from experience.
>
> >> Of really??? Just much "Win32 software" have you personally "written
> >> for hardware that is supported by VxD drivers".
>
> Note: No response from Bennie. And it's obvious why.

"Of really???"  I guess you meant to say something else.  I don't write
Win32 software.  I install and use it.  Sometimes it's interesting to
install the same Win32 software packages on Win 9x and NT 4 and note
the differences in the way the software installs and runs.

>
> >>I have a web site
> >>containing a dozen such programs that I've personally written. That's
> >>why I know the FUD you're attempting to promulgate is so much
> >>inaccurate hot air from someone who thinks he knows-it-all but is
> >>obviously waaaaaaaaaaay over his head here, and doesn't really know
> >>what he's talking about.
>
> >I'm not spreading "fud."
>
> Merely claiming so doesn't make it so.

And merely rejecting it doesn't make it false.  I've supplied URLs to
support my claims.  You have supplied none.

> The fact that I've shown
> numerous specific examples that contradict your claims, and cited many
> more such examples since I'm talking about typical Win32 software (not
> some program that you allegedly once got bundled with a sound card),
> proves that you're spreading FUD.
>
> It's obvious why you can't provide a number of specific examples to
> support your bogus allegations.
>
> >How can what you've written be taken seriously,
>
> Because the examples I give actually exist and disprove your bogus
> allegations.

I've seen no evidence to support your claims.  You've supplied no evidence.
Where is the supporting documentation?  Supply some URLs.

>
> What I can't take seriously is your bogus allegations, devoid of any
> substantiation.
>
> >when MS has admitted that Win 9x and NT are competing and incompatible
> >implementations of Win32?
>
> Care to provide a attributed quote from MS in which they admit that
> "Win 9x and NT are competing and incompatible implementations of
> Win32"? Or, is this another one of those "Microsoft said" things that
> you got from some IBM salesman?

Care to supply an attributed quote from MS which states the opposite:
namely, Windows 9x and Windows NT are exactly the same, folks.  They
are completely compatible.  Everything that runs on Win 9x will run
on NT v4.

They'd get some real laughs with that.

>
> >They have been intending and working for years
> >to merge these two platforms. They haven't succeeded.
>
> Probably because they haven't been doing what you're claiming that
> they're doing, just like when you revealed your "source" for what you
> claim MS has said and done, it was revealed to be someone other than
> MS.

They haven't succeeded, yet.  That's true.

How about these:

http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayArchive.pl?/98/05/t12-05.10.htm
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?99047.ecballmer.htm
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayArchive.pl?/99/15/t11-15.10.htm
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?99023.wcwin9x.htm

Note particulary the refererences to "Consumer NT" and the phasing out
of DOS-based Windows 9x.  Note, also, the numerous times MS spokesmen,
such as, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and others, are quoted.

>
> >As I have said,
> >NT's nonsupport of VxD type drivers is good.  And any software that
> >requires hardware that is ONLY supported via a VxD driver will not
> >work in NT.  That's a minor issue, anymore.
>
> Win32 doesn't require VxDs. It runs fine with WDM and Kernel Mode
> drivers. That's because it's hardware independent. I've been trying to
> get this exceedingly simple point through your thick skull, but
> obviously it's over your head.

Maybe the problem is with the use of "WIN32" as a description of an API
and as an abbreviation for 32 bit Windows architecture?  They are not
identical, of course.  If your point is that the Win32 API does not
include VxDs, fine.  If your mean that Windows 32 bit processing of the
Win 9x variety does not include VxDs, then I don't agree.

>
> Still, you'd think that someone who claims to be able to develop
> drivers would be able to grasp a concept that any first year computer
> science student is taught.
>
> >>Show me the money, and then you won't be such a load of foolish,
> >>misguided hot air.
>
> >What's the URL for your site?

What's the URL for your site?

>
> >>>Sound cards were not always supported under NT
>
> >> This is, of course, a completely inaccurate statement (unless you're
> >> talking about some early beta of NT akin to OS/2 1.0. I mean, at some
> >> early point, OS/2 didn't support such things as JAVA, zip drives,
> >> higher video resolutions, etc, etc, etc. But that still doesn't
> >> explain why you're making flat-out-erroneous, unproven statements
> >> about Win32 as it exists today).
>
> >MS still provides hardware compatibility list for NT.  It's very
> >existence proves that there are devices that are not supported by
> >NT. If NT supported every device, there would be no need for a
> >hardware compatibility list.
>
> That's a HARDWARE compatibility list -- not a Win32 application
> software compatibility list. As such, it's hardly any sort of
> substantiation for your bogus claims about Win32 application software.

I originally made the statement about VxDs not being supported in NT as
one example of the incompatibilities that exist between Win 9x and NT,
even though both are Windows 32 bit archiectures.  This reference to
the Hardware compatibility list provides more support.  The reference
to VxDs in my original point, of course, implies the involvement of
hardware.  A VxD is worthless without the hardware it was written to
support.  And the hardware is worthless without a device driver.  VxDs
are one way of providing hardware support within the Win 9x type of
Windows 32 bit architecture.

>
> >> Obviously, you are completely unaware of NT's Kernel Mode Drivers and
> >> its implementation of MCI. I have no doubt that you know absolutely
> >> nothing about the details of NT's driver structure. Have you ever even
> >> opened Art Baker's book to page 1??? I doubt it. Here it sits right
> >> next to my computer -- one of the books that I'm currently reading. If
> >> you're going to insist upon talking about NT drivers, maybe you read
> >> it to clear up your misconceptions, such as the one above).
>
> >> >because of the use of VxDs to access the
> >> >hardware.
>
> >> Um, you are apparently completely unaware that some sound card support
> >> under Win 9X doesn't use VxDs. For example, my Roland RAP-10 audio
> >> card is using a Win 3.1 driver under Win 9X which is NOT a VxD.
>
> >Nowhere in any statement I have made did I state or imply that ALL
> >soundcard devices have VxD drivers for Win 95 support.
>
> And that's why your generalities about Win32 are so WRONG. They're
> apparently based upon things such as hearsay from IBM employees, and
> all sorts of oddball FUD that isn't even remotely related to what is
> *really* happening with Win32 application support.

I was not making a generality.  It was a very specific case that I was
citing.  A Windows 32 bit program that is written for a hardware device
that is only supported by a VxD will not work in NT.  That's not a
generality.

>
> Maybe if you actually wrote some Win32 applications, you'd know
> something about them.
>
> But I pity the person who would ever foolishly hire you to write Win32
> stuff. Clearly, you lack the knowledge to do so.

I lack the desire to do so.

>
> >How well do games run in NT that require DirectX 6?
>
> They don't run without DirectX 6. The fact that NT 5 *will* have
> DirectX 6 underscores how bogus is your allegation that there is some
> sort of "design dichotomy" that prevents Win32 software from running
> upon NT due to VxDs.

You goofed.  There won't be an NT 5.  Haven't you heard?  NT is dead.

Plus, you're trying to dance around my statement, because you know it's
true.  NT 4 does not provide the support.  That's another incompatibility
between Win 9x and NT.  And this one, in my estimation, is pretty important.

>
> Obviously, the fact that VxDs exist, and are even used in DirectX
> hasn't prevented DirectX from running on NT. Surprise, surprise.
> That's because there's a lot more that you don't know about, for
> example kernel mode drivers and WDM.

I was wondering when the VxDs in DirectX were going to be brought up.  When
I run DXDIAG, I've noticed that nasty little extension on a number of the
driver files listed.  They won't work in NT.

But, as you said, and I agree, MS is working on that.  They have stated
that Win 9x will be replaced with a Consumer version of NT that provides
some support for existing apps.  However, while MS has promised to include
the latest version of DirectX in NT, the issue of such legacy items as VxDs
has not been addressed in any reports I have read.

It seems that the issue of legacy support is one of the sticky wickets
MS is having to deal with.  That is why the date for the replacement for
Win 9x keeps slipping.  Even Ballmer has addressed that.

>
> Learn something *before* you start spreading FUD.
>
> >> Again, you simply do not know what you're talking about. Your ideas of
> >> what are "true" and "false" about Win32, NT drivers, and other such
> >> Windows issues are obviously based upon uninformed hearsay and
> >> inaccurate FUD (no doubt disseminated from other technically
> >> illiterate and uninformed OS/2 zealots).
>
> >> I'll say it again because it bears noting the extent of your
> >> fanaticism. I *could* explain all of this stuff to you so that you'd
>
> >You say that, but nothing you've written gives a hint that you are able
> >to deliver on this promise.  I would welcome an intelligent, courteous
> >technical exchange with you.
>
> I have absolutely no confidence that you're capable of understanding
> it. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing except the ability to
> spread bogus, unsubstantiated, groundless, uninformed FUD.
>
> *Where* is your alleged "intelligent technical exchange"????

I have supplied reasons and references with no personal attacks.  You have
retorted with snide remarks, personal attacks, and unsubstantiated rebuttals.
However, I will give you credit for altering the balance: you have supplied
fewer snide remarks and personal attacks while giving more space to your
unsubstantiated claims.

>
> >> actually know the truth instead of your distorted, inaccurate version,
> >> but I doubt that you'd understand it, and much worse, I'm convinced
> >> that your overzealous "love" for OS/2 has made you hellbent upon
> >> believing only the absolute worst FUD about Windows which anyone can
> >> conjure up, regardless of accuracy and any sense of perspective.
>
> >You "conviction" is quite misplaced.  I own four copies of Windows.  Win
3.0,
> >Win 3.11, and two copies of Win 95.  Win 3.0 is not in use, but the other
> >three are installed and are regularly used in my household.  I also have
three
> >copies of Warp v4 and one copy of Linux installed.
>
> And I happen to own a bit of OS/2 stuff. So?

Do you use it?  I have used Windows since version 3.0.  I continue to use
Win 9x and NT 4 to this day.

>
> >At work, I have NT 4 and Warp 4 installed on my desktop system, and I am
> >System Administator for a server running NT Server.  I support Windows NT,
> >Win 95, and Win 98 on desktops in our department.
>
> God help the person who needs some information about Win32 software or
> drivers. Personally, I wouldn't go to you. You don't appear to know
> much about them, and what you do claim to know is rife with technical
> inaccuracies and distortions.

Another vapid and baseless personal attack.

>
> You've been reading way too many IBM white papers.

How many have I read, and how many do you consider to be too many?  I thnk I
read one a few years ago.

>
> >> To be sure, your own FUD is far from accurate, and obviously lacks the
> >> perspective of being spoken from personal experience with these
> >> programming issues, despite your undemonstrated claim otherwise.
>
> >Is that a confession?  Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote that?
> >It sure describes your "contributions" to this newsgroup.
>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          19-Oct-99 10:01:22
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:29
Subj: (2/2) Re: IBM re-evaluating consumer PC business

> Um, *I* am the guy who has software out there that can be found in a
> number of places. You're the guy with only allegations, claims, and a
> whole lot of hot air.

You have yet to supply a url.

>
> >>>This method is supported in Win 9x and not supported in NT.
>
> >> Um, NT drivers have plenty of access to the same hardware as VxDs, and
> >> can do the same things with that hardware, thereby providing a device
> >> independent (ie, typical) Win32 application the same support.
>
> >This is quite true.  Nothing I have stated has denied that.  The point
> >here is that to provide support for both Win 9x and NT, when a VxD has
> >been developed for Win 9x, another device driver must be developed.
>
> And that has nothing to do with Win32 applications being allegedly
> tied to VxDs, despite your misguided claims otherwise.

Win32 apps can be tied to VxDs if a developer makes the decision to do
so.

>
> >After all your blusteriness has dissipated, you've admitted that I'm right.
>
> No, I'm telling you that you're wrong. Do you always hear everything
> incorrectly?

You simply restated what I said.  NT cannot use a VxD to support a hardware
device, so another one must be developed.  Thus, for a hardware device to
be supported in the two competing Windows 32 bit worlds, if the Win 9x
support is provided via a VxD, then there must be a separate device driver
to provide NT support for the same device.  Is that the most current method
of device support in the Windows 32 bit world?  No.  MS is trying to merge
Win 9x and NT.  Thus, they have provided a newer model for supporting devices.

>
> >> Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. I guess that's
> >> why you've been unable to provide even one example to buttress your
> >> uninformed FUD, and cite it as typical, whereas I have an entire web
> >> site of software that refutes your bogus depictions about "Win32
> >> software" and I cite countless other Win32 software as likewise.
>
> >You've not supplied one counter example.  You've merely alluded to their
> >existence.
>
> How ironic coming from the person who "demonstrates" his
> qualifications to even be discussing programming issues by alluding to
> some alleged program he once wrote for his wife!

I supplied that example because it is more relevant to the type of software
that you have written.  I could have mentioned the Problem Management System
I designed and coded.  Or the Change Management System.  Or the Automated
Job Documentation System.  Or the Inventory Control Reporting System.  All
of which I designed and coded.  Or the numerous utilities that I have
developed.  Would it have mattered, if I had?  I doubt it.  You won't accept
a bonafide URL for supporting information, so why should I ramble on about
my personal history?

>
> If you can't find even one person who can verify that I've written a
> number of programs, then you truly are as helpless as I suspect you to
> be.

I've looked through the list of programs you developed.  It was pretty
impressive.  I could find it, again, but I'm amused that you won't supply
one URL, not even for your own material.

>
> >Besides, all of those examples do not establish that my
> >point is wrong.  All I'd have to do is provide one example.
>
> Which you even have yet to do, for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, one
> example doesn't substantiate the incorrect generalities/FUD you've
> spewed about Win32 software, drivers, and design.
>
> >> >Any Win32 software written for that soundcard would not work because
> >> >the soundcard could not be accessed.
> >>
> >> Win32 programmers don't write for *a* soundcard. We write for all
> >> soundcards. I *write* such Win32 software. It accesses the soundcard
> >> under both NT and Win 9X. I know what I'm talking about.

Win32 programmers writing software for a particular company can and sometimes
do write software that only works with that company's hardware.  You are not
developing your software in that capacity, it seems.

>
> >If you go back and look at my statement, I clearly indicated that the
> >software was bundled by the manufacturer of the card.
>
> One program hardly proves that your bogus generalities about Win32
> software, drivers, and design is anything but uninformed FUD.

One example proves that the statement I made is true.

>
> >This is a
> >common occurrence: proprietary software written for a propietary
> >hardware device and supplied in the package with that device.
>
> No, a common occurence is the multitude of Win32 software that is NOT
> bundled and designed to work with specific hardware. These are the
> multitude of examples that prove your bogus generalities about Win32
> software, drivers, and design to be so much uninformed FUD.

I wasn't and am not referring to multitudes of Win32 programs.  That is
FUD on your part.  You're trying to obfuscate by introducing needless
complications and irrelevancies.

>
> >> You obviously haven't written any such software. That's undoubtably
> >> why you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> >I have written hundreds of programs, thousands of lines of code, using
> >many programming languages.
>
> I seriously doubt it.

I'm not surprised.

>
> >You obviously have me confused with someone else.
>
> Being that you keep mistaking IBM reps for MS spokesmen, I rather
> think that you're the one who is confused.

I believe the number of URLs I supplied that reference quotes from Ballmer,
Gates et al is sufficient to debunk this one.

>
> >> >> >Until recently, USB
> >> >> >support was in this category among other things.  Of course, with the
> >> >> >new WDM this is no longer an issue.
> >> >>
> >> >> Drivers are ALWAYS an issue on any platform. It's a fundamental
> >> >> "layer" of any operating system, and if you don't have the driver
> >> >> support you need, you're in trouble. For example, with my program
> >> >> above, it may even exhibit different levels of support and
> >> >> performance, depending upon the particular drivers that are used with
> >> >> the app. That's the way that things always are with drivers...
> >> >> anywhere they are.
> >> >>
> >> >> But that's a support issue, not some alleged "design issue" about the
> >> >> "Win32 specification" and some sort of supposed "software written for
> >> >> hardware that is supported by VxD drivers".
>
> >It is a design issue.
>
> No, it's a support issue.

OK.  It's both.  It's the design of the supporting device driver.

>
> >Win 9x provides a different architecture for
> >hardware support than NT.
>
> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Win32 applications. They are
> not drivers, and they are not dependent upon hardware or driver
> designs as you erroneously presume.

If you are using "Win32 applications" to mean applications designed
according to the Win 32 API, I agree.  The VxD restriction is not a
Win32 API issue.

>
> >> >> And frankly, an OS/2 user should be the last person to start trying to
> >> >> denigrate the driver support of Windows. Historically, OS/2 driver
> >> >> support has been as dismal as any operating system has ever seen.
>
> >> >OS/2 driver support is better now than when Win 95 was released.  As I
> >> >recall, there was a huge list of thousands of devices not being
supported
> >> >in Win 95 during the beta.  OS/2's support for devices is far better now
> >> >than NT 4.0 when it was released.
> >>
> >> Ah, so then your recent FUD about the reputed current "design" and
> >> state of Win32 is actually based upon some preliminary betas of NT and
> >> Win 9X. I see. That explains a lot.
> >
> >Not a good inference to draw from my statement.  What else can we conclude?
> >How about: OS/2 is supposed to be dead, and hardware device support is one
> >way to prove that OS/2 is dead.  BUT, OS/2's device support now is better
> >than Win 95 and NT 4 when they were released.  Can we conclude then that
> >Win 95 and NT were Dead On Arrival?  Obviously not.  But, if Win 95 and NT
> >were not labelled "dead" given the level of device support when they were
> >released, why should OS/2 be considered dead when it's current level of
> >device support exceeds the device support of those two products when they
> >were released?
>
> OS/2 is dead because its manufacturer is phasing it out. It's not
> Microsoft that is having difficulty supporting its software designs.
> It's IBM.

IBM recently licensed SDD's video device driver technology to dramatically
upgrade OS/2's support for video cards.  That's IBM phasing out support for
OS/2?  I don't think so.  IBM's device driver site for OS/2 lists more than
6000 supported devices and systems.  And I know that list is not complete,
because it doesn't include the Turtle Beach Malibu soundcard that I use
which is fully supported in OS/2.

>
> >> It explains why you don't know what you're talking about today.
>
> >> Incidentally, driver support for both Win9X and NT are better than
> >> OS/2 *now*. But I guess that when one is living in the past like you
> >> are, what's happening right now doesn't really matter.
>
> >OS/2 supports more than an adequate number of devices.  Furthermore, the
> >devices supported by OS/2 tend to be the better quality devices.
>
> Hahahhahaha!!!! riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
>
> That SB Pro sure beats the hell out of that crummy Digital Audio Labs
> CardD.
>
> hahahahah!!! You OS/2 zealots are *always* good for a laugh.

I use Turtle Beach Malibu 64 soundcards in my OS/2 systems at home.  The
Kurzweil synthesizer feature is quite nice.

>
> >I don't care that OS/2 doesn't support every sound card or every video card
> >or every printer.  I don't need one of each.  What I want is high quality
> >products that are not a source of instability and problems.  With OS/2, if
> >the product is supported, it's more likely than not to be a trouble-free
> >experience.  You cannot say that for Win 9x.
>
> Yes, I can say that for Win 9x. That's what I use.
>
> Are you never tired of making flat-out incorrect statements?

There are so many cheap devices that are supported by Win 9x and many of
them are not trouble free.  For the average consumer, buying an adapter
and getting it installed and getting it working is like stepping into
the twilight zone.  And especially for the people who buy the cheaper
gear.  The Internet has many sites devoted to reviewing new hardware.  One
major reason for that is the amount of trouble people have had with getting
a new piece of hardware working.

Also, the lack of support for many devices is a feature for OS/2 and NT.  That
is a major contributing factor to the superior stability of OS/2 and NT over
Win 9x.

Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     19-Oct-99 14:32:13
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:29
Subj: IBM to stop selling PCs through retail outlets

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>

http://www.nyjournalnews.com/news/19jn20.sht

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Mirage Media (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 15:02:04
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7uga8f$re5$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >> Lucien writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:
>
> >>> Feel free to reread the "costly mistakes" thread, if you're
> >>> interested; it's still archived on USENET.
>
> >> Indeed, complete with an explanation of why you're wrong, and
complete
> >> with your attempt to obfuscate the issue by tossing around jargon.
>
> >>> Of course, you'll be no more capable of understanding what was
> >>> going on than Tholen was.
>
> >> It's hard to be more capable of understanding what was going go
than I
> >> was, because I understood quite well what was going on, including
an
>
> > Nope. You were lost the whole time.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.

The proof is in the old thread. Reread it.

> >> understanding of your attempts to obfuscate the issue by tossing
> >> around jargon.
>
> > Wrong. You're still lost.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.

The proof is in the old thread. Reread it.

> >> The fact that you omitted the crucial word "prevent" from your
> >> first recent response demonstrates either an intentional attempt to
>
> > Wrong.
>
> How can you say that before one of the two possibilities even gets
> mentioned?

My statements don't affect the inaccuracy of your remarks.

> >> deceive readers now, or that you did not understand what was going
on
>
> > Still wrong.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.

The proof is in the old thread. Reread it.

> >> back then, which would be rather ironic, considering the comment
you
> >> made above.
>
> > Still wrong...
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.

The proof is in the old thread. Reread it.

> > Quiz grade: F.
>
> Note the complete absence of any supporting explanation.  It figures.

The supporting explanation is in the old thread. Reread it.

> Same old Lucien.

Quiz retake grade: F.

Lucien S.
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 15:07:13
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7ugasn$re5$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:
>
> >>>>>>> Joseph wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer,
> >>>>>>>> bummer.
>
> >>>>>>> It's also bullshit.
>
> >>>>>> Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2
> >>>>>> functionality.
>
> >>>>>>> Download something like NetBeans, that requires
> >>>>>>> JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
>
> >>>>>> Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
> >>>>>> implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement
SOME
> >>>>>> of it, however.
>
> >>>>> On the contrary, your very own logic proves that he said exactly
> >>>>> that (Re your argument from the "costly mistakes" thread of some
> >>>>> years ago which you've conveniently forgotten here).
>
> >>>> I've not forgotten anything here.  Ironically, you've forgotten
> >>>> something, namely that my "very own logic" involved the usage of
> >>>> "prevent", as in "prevent costly mistakes" or "prevent wild
fires",
> >>>> which you insisted was ambiguous.  The quotation above does not
> >>>> involve anything analogous to "prevent", which is why Timbol's
> >>>> interpretation is incorrect, and also why your "on the contrary"
> >>>> is incorrect.
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> Is that the best you can do?  If you really didn't forget about
> >> "prevent", then why did you omit such a crucial piece of history?
>
> Note:  no response.
>
> >>> Go back and reread the thread to find out why.
>
> >> Rereading the thread won't explain why you omitted the crucial word
> >> "prevent" from your first response.
>
> > It will reveal why your Java support statement is at odds with the
> > argument you made 4 years ago in the "costly mistakes" thread
>
> No, it won't.

Yes, it will.

>The reason is quite clear, as I already noted:  there
> is nothing analogous to "prevent" in the quotation above.

Wrong. Reread the thread, it'll explain why your argument about the
Java statement (as well as the argument below) is wrong.

Happy reading,

Lucien S.

> Let's use an example.  Suppose an album cover says:
>
>    Encore!
>    The New York Philharmonic
>    performs works by
>    Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss
>
> Now, are you going to expect the album to include performances of the
> complete works by Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss?  You shouldn't,
> because there's nothing in the definition of the word "performs" to
> suggest such completeness.
>
> Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality", there
is
> nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to suggest that all
> such functionality was implemented.
>
> But when one writes "prevent costly mistakes", there is something in
the
> definition of "prevent" that does suggest all such mistakes.  As I
noted
> the last time we had the discussion, the definition of "prevent"
includes
> "to keep from happening".
>
> You can toss around all the X bar syntax you want to obfuscate the
issue.
> It won't do you any good when you ignore the definitions of the words.
>
> > (if you can follow your own argument therein, that is).
>
> I can.  You obviously couldn't.  That's your problem, not mine.
>
> >> I suggest you reread the thread to find out why you were wrong
> >> then (and now).  You apparently need to refresh your memory about
> >> certain critical portions of the argument, like the meaning of
> >> "prevent".
> >>
> >> "Only you can prevent forest fires."
> >>    --Smokey Bear
> >>
> >> "That's ambiguous."
> >>    --Lucien
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  19-Oct-99 11:34:14
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:29
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something claiming to be a <[e-mail]> tholened the usual
tholenesque non-comebacks:

> >> http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/10/15/1012230.shtml
>
> > Let me be the first to issue the patented, "But what does this have to
> > do with OS/2?"
>
> Who patented that, Marty?
>
> By the way, if you used the Find option in Netscape with OS/2 as the
> argument, you would have found the text that has to do with OS/2.
> Nothing new, of course.

If there was nothing new, why did you bother to respond, o Tholen?  By the
way, if you wish to take the word "patent" in the sense you're using, you
are among the few people who "patented" that phrase, Tholen.  I'm surprised
you had to ask.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 08:41:28
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:29
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Marty wrote:
>
>
> ...And those who seek conspiracy under every rock and around every corner.
>
> What would such motives be?  How could they benefit those who hold them?
>
I don't know but I think it's great that you're asking those kinds of
questions.  People who blindly follow and never question are a danger.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 08:49:28
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:29
Subj: Much ado about OS/2...

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>

Bill Nichols at BYTE has a very interesting and lengthy feature on Warp
Expo West and on fear and loathing in the OS/2 world at large.  A must
read for OS/2 users at:

http://www.byte.com/feature/BYT19991014S0005

At one point, Bill says:  "There was a lot of action around a [OS/2]
system with the new AMD Athlon processor..."

Does anyone out there know what Athlon motherboard was used with the
OS/2 system?  And was the motherboard BIOS able to find more than 64MB
of memory for OS/2?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 08:59:07
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:29
Subj: Old News!

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>

This was reported last week and has nothing to do with OS/2.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 15:51:29
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 12:51:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7ugbqo$ab7$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] (Mike Timbol) wrote:


> In article <7ugasn$re5$[e-mail]>,
> Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality",
there is
> >nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to suggest that
all
> >such functionality was implemented.
>
> Except that there is.  If you claim to implement a standard, then it
is
> assumed that you implement the entire standard.  Any other
interpretation
> conveys no useful information.
> The Integer class is part of the Java 1.2 standard.  But you cannot
claim
> that you implement Java 1.2 functionality simply because you've
implemented
> the Integer class.

BTW, it's interesting (and humorous) to note that Tholen's new argument
here is based on the same fallacious reasoning he unknowingly employed
in the "costly mistakes" thread.

Further proof that he never followed along....

Lucien S.

>      - Mike
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 15:53:09
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:04
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>> But any resonable person would realize that you are wrong,

>>>> I am not wrong when I note that a FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
>>>> Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.

>>> Yes, Dave, you are.

>> No I'm not, Mike.  Even the compiler vendor states that the compiler
>> implements Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.

> Evidence, please.

WATCOM FORTRAN 77 version 11.0a.  Supports SELECT syntax, DO/END DO
syntax, and 132 character source lines, for example; not in FORTRAN 77,
but they are in Fortran 90.

> Reproduce the exact quote.

Unnecessary.  See below for why.

>>> If you claim that a particular FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
>>> Fortran 90 functionality as an extension,

>> The key word here, once again, is "if".  I claimed "extensions", Mike,
>> not "extension".  That alone should tell you something.

> It doesn't.

I'm not surprised.  You have to think first.

> Whether the functionality is encapsulated in one extension
> or multiple extensions is irrelevent.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant to what I claimed, and you started
out by writing "If you claim", which makes it relevant to what you wrote.

> One expects the functionality to be there.

Incorrect.  One does not expect Fortran 90 functionality to be in a
FORTRAN 77 compiler.

> Yet parts of it are apparently missing.

Of course.  If no parts of Fortran 90 were missing from the compiler,
then they should have called it a Fortran 90 compiler, not a FORTRAN 77
compiler.

>>> would not a reasonable person conclude that the compiler in question
>>> will compile programs written for Fortran 90?

>> No, because if the compiler supported all of Fortran 90, then the
>> vendor would obviously call it a Fortran 90 compiler.

> Why so?

For marketing reasons, Mike.  Support for a more recent standard is a
selling point.

> You claimed the functionality was available through extensions.

That's because it is, Mike.

> One thing, plus extensions, can be equal to another thing.

And if it were, then they should call it another thing, Mike.  Wouldn't
you?  If you wrote a JDK that supports all of 1.2, would you call it
1.1.8, Mike?

> For example, an RS model car, plus options, may have the functionality
> of an LS model car.  However, the car is still an RS, not an LS.

We are talking about compilers and developers kits, Mike, not cars.
Color coded bumpers might not be considered "functionality" by some
purchasers, thus two cars that have the same basic functionality can
still differ cosmetically.

>> The vendor
>> didn't, thus a reasonable person would conclude that the compiler
>> in question will compile only those Fortran 90 programs that are
>> limited to the new features supported via extensions.

> And the claim was that the functionality was available through
> extensions.

That's because it is.

> Yet, apparently, parts of the functionality are missing.

Of course.  If no parts of Fortran 90 were missing from the compiler,
then they should have called it a Fortran 90 compiler, not a FORTRAN 77
compiler.

> I guess "Fortran 90 functionality" isn't available after all.

Incorrect.  See above for three examples.  There are more.

>>> Yes, he would.  But that conclusion would be wrong because the
>>> statement is wrong.

>> Incorrect, given that the statement is not wrong.  The statement is
>> merely misinterpreted by people like you, who don't understand the
>> language properly.

> No, the statement is wrong.

Incorrect, given that the statement is not wrong.  The statement is
merely misinterpreted by people like you, who don't understand the
language properly.

> If "Fortran 90 functionality" is promised, then one expects
> functionality equivalent to Fortran 90.

Illogical.  If one expects functionality equivalent to Fortran 90, then
the compiler would have been called a Fortran 90 compiler, Mike.  It
wasn't.  That alone should tell you something.  Why do you think IBM is
calling their JDK 1.1.8 rather than 1.2?

>>>>>> You're wrong once again and are obviously trying very hard to save
>>>>>> face.

>>>>> I'm not wrong, Dave.

>>>> Yes you are, Mike, because IBM's Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 does implement
>>>> Java 1.2 functionality.

>>> Evidence, please.

>> Go to IBM's web site, Mike.

> That's not evidence, Dave,

Yes it is, Mike.

> that's a directive.

..to the evidence, Mike.

> I'll just note that you fail to supply any evidence.

Incorrect.  If you'd rather stick to something you're more familiar with,
like USENET, try Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]>.

>>> What "Java 1.2 functionality" do you refer to?

>> The specifics are irrelevant, Mike.  Some functionality from Java 1.2
>> is implemented.

> Prove it, Dave, if you think you can.

See the above-mentioned posting, Mike.

> I've asked you this before, and you've failed to provide any proof.

Incorrect.  If you'd rather stick to something you're more familiar with,
like USENET, try Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]>.

> This time will be no different.

Incorrect.  This time I referred you to an article in USENET rather
than a web site.  I previously thought you could handle web browsing.
I was apparently mistaken.

>>> Can I use weak references?

>> Ask IBM, Mike.

> I'm asking you, Dave; you made the claim,

Where is the alleged claim, Mike?  Rather, you're asking a question
and I'm answering it.  No claim is involved.

> thus the burden of proof is on you.

Illogical, given that no claim is involved.

> I see you falter under that burden, as usual.

Illogical, given that no claim is involved.

I see you resorted to your deletion tactics again.

>>> Gee, seems like it does a pretty poor job of implement "Java 1.2
>>> functionality".

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> The claim that much of the functionality specified in Java 1.2 is
> missing.

Whose claim is that, Mike?  I asked for the basis, not the claim.

How much is "much", Mike?  Perhaps "a good deal"?

> If I give you the plans for a house, and all you build is a single door,
> that's a pretty poor job of implementing the plans.

The key word here is "if", Mike.  You haven't given me the plans for a
house, and I have not built a single door.

>>>>> Ask a reasonable person if DOS implements OS/2 functionality.

>>>> Still can't get your chronology straight, can you, Mike?

>>> There's no mention of chronology in my statement.  Explain how
>>> chronology affects your claim that JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2
>>> functionality?  You can't, obviously.

>> Illogical, given that I already did.  Still having reading comprehension
>> problems, Mike?  Here, let me repost the material you deleted:
>>
>> DT] There were some releases of DOS that postdate OS/2, and I wouldn't
>> DT] rule out the possibility that the DOS developers implemented something
>> DT] they saw in OS/2.  FAT, however, does not qualify.

> There's nothing there about JDK 1.1.8 nor JDK 1.2.

There is something there about DOS and OS/2, Mike.

> Thus, no explanation of your "chronology" complaint.

On the contrary, there is an explanation, Mike.  You simply need to
understand analogies.  Apparently you can't.  I should have known
better, considering how often you've tried to use inappropriate ones.

>>>>> If the intent of the statement is that JDK 1.1.8 implements the
>>>>> features found in JDK 1.1.8, why mention JDK 1.2 at all?

>>>> The key word here is "if".  The intent is to note how IBM has
>>>> incorporated some Java 1.2 features in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.

>>> What, then, makes something a "Java 1.2" feature?

>> A feature in Java 1.2 that wasn't in Java 1.1, Mike.

> There are many features in Java 1.2 that weren't in JDK 1.1.  However,
> some of those features were introduced in JDK 1.1.1 -> JDK 1.1.7.
> Do those qualify?

Obviously not, given that we're talking about 1.1.8, Mike.

>>> Which features are you referring to?

>> The features from Java 1.2 that IBM chose to implement in Java 1.1.8,
>> Mike.

> Which features would those be?

Java 2 security classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP, the
COMM API, and Swing, for example.

> You don't know.

Incorrect.  See above.

> You are, once again, arguing from a position of arrogant ignorance.

On the contrary, I am, once again, arguing from a position of knowledge
and logic.  Meanwhile, you are arguing from a position of arrogant
ignorance and illogic, which explains why you have deleted
counterexamples that demonstrate your ignorance and illogic.

>>>> That's why 1.2 gets mentioned at all.

>>> Note the two following sentences:
>>>
>>>  1. "JDK 1.1.8 implements some features found in JDK 1.2"
>>>  2. "JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2 functionality"
>>>
>>> Do these mean the same thing?

>> Yes.

> Wrong.

Prove if, if you think you can, Mike.

> If you promise "JDK 1.2 functionality", one expects functionality
> equivalent to JDK 1.2.

Incorrect.  If all of JDK 1.2 was implemented, then they would
have called it JDK 1.2, not JDK 1.1.8, Mike.

> Is that what IBM's JDK 1.1.8 delivers?

It delivers what they claimed to deliver, Mike.

> Not at all.

What you expect them to deliver is irrelevant, Mike.  You obviously
are having trouble with the simple concept of naming a JDK.  You
apparently think that it's logical to call something that implements
all of JDK 1.2 "JDK 1.1.8".

>> Note the following two sentences:
>>
>>   1.  On this album, the New York Philharmonic performs music by
>>       Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss.
>>
>>   2.  On this album, the New York Philharmonic performs some music
>>       by Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss.
>>
>> Do these mean the same thing?

> Does "performs music" equal "implements JDK 1.2 functionality"?

In this case, they are analogous, Mike.  You do understand the
purpose of an analogy, don't you, Mike?  Analogies are not meant
to be equal, but merely analogous.  Why do you think Lucien
brought up "costly mistakes" (leaving out the key word "prevents"
in the process)?

> No, it does not,

They are analogous, Mike.

> thus your examle is irrelevent.

On the contrary, my examle [sic] is quite relevant, given that it
is analogous.

> Dave, we're talking about technical product releases with defined
> standards.

And I used a FORTRAN 77 example as well, Mike, which happens to be
a technical product with defined standards.

Where were you when Lucien brought up "costly mistakes", Mike?
That's not a technical product with a defined standard, yet you
didn't challenge the appropriateness of his attempted rebuttal.

> You do not understand that subject matter.

On the contrary, I do, as evidenced by my use of the FORTRAN 77
example.

> That's why you insist on arguing about music and composers.

I've done more than just use music and composers, Mike.  Have you
forgotten about my use of FORTRAN 77 already?  I wouldn't be
surprised.

You couldn't argue your way out of a brown paper bag, Mike.

>>> Note the definition:
>>>
>>>  functionality
>>>
>>>  The capabilities or behaviours of a program,

>> Note the plurals.  That's what makes it possible to implement some
>> of the functionality.

> Yes, Dave, it does.

Glad you agree.

> And when you implement some of the functionality,
> then you say you implement some of the functionality.

Unnecessary, given that if you implemented all of the functionality,
then you should give the product the appropriate name.  For example,
a FORTRAN 77 compiler that implements all of the Fortran 90 standard
should be called a Fortran 90 compiler.

> Note the word "some" which indicates incompleteness.

Note the use of FORTRAN 77, which also indicates some incompleteness
with regard to the Fortran 90 standard.  Note the use of JDK 1.1.8,
which also indicates some incompleteness with regard to JDK 1.2.

>>>  part of a program or system, seen as the sum of its features.

>> Where did this "seen as the sum" come from, Mike?

> From the dictionary definition, Dave.

Whose dictionary, Mike?  It's certainly not in my dictionary.

>>>  Roughly, "the things it can do". Generally used in a comparitive
>>>  sense, e.g. "The latest update adds some useful functionality".

>> Ah ha!  Here the word is used in a sense that is not "seen as the sum".
>> Rather, it refers to the additions.  Your own example contradicts your
>> own definition.

> Not at all.

On the contrary, it does, as I clearly described above, Mike.

> Functionality is the behavior of a program.

Why the sudden switch to singular, Mike?  You started out using the
plural in your alleged definition above.

> You can break it down into parts if you wish.

Not if it's singular, Mike.  Do make up your mind.

> When you refer to "the save functionality", you refer to the the
> features having to do with saving.

That's singular, Mike.  The case in point is plural.

> When you refer to "Word 6.0 functionality", you refer to the features
> of Word 6.0.

And it's certainly possible to implement some of them, Mike.

> When you refer to "JDK 1.2 functionality", you refer to the features of
> JDK 1.2.

Like security classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP, the COMM API,
and Swing.

>>> Does JDK 1.1.8 implement "the sum of features" of JDK 1.2?

>> Irrelevant, given that neither Joseph nor I said anything about
>> "the sum of features", Mike.

> Instead, you referred to "JDK 1.2 functionality".

Like security classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP, the COMM API,
and Swing.

> That's "the sum of features of JDK 1.2."

Incorrect, Mike.  Don't put words into my mouth or Joseph's.

>>> No, it does not.

>> Still irrelevant, Mike.  Try dealing with what Joseph actually wrote,
>> rather than what you've misinterpreted him to have written.

> I did, Dave.

Incorrect, Mike.

> "JDK 1.2 functionalty" is what both of you wrote.

Then why did you deal with "the sum of features of JDK 1.2", Mike?

> If you claim IBM's JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2 functionality, a
> reasonable person would conclude that it delivers functionality
> equivalent to JDK 1.2.

Incorrect.  If all of JDK 1.2 was implemented, then they would
have called it JDK 1.2, not JDK 1.1.8, Mike.  That's what a
reasonable person would expect.  You obviously don't qualify.

> Yet it does not.

Obviously, otherwise they would have called it JDK 1.2, Mike.
Wouldn't you?

> No matter what you bring up about composers and Fortran compilers,

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 15:53:09
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> that's the bottom line -- JDK 1.1.8 does not deliver functionality
> equivalent to JDK 1.2.

Irrelevant, given that neither Joseph nor I used "equivalent to",
Mike.  That's the bottom line:  JDK 1.1.8 does deliver JDK 1.2
functionality, and there's a logical reason why it's still called
JDK 1.1.8.

Of course, you have to think logically to comprehend the situation,
and I know that's difficult for you, Mike.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           19-Oct-99 12:17:06
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <93_O3.2838$[e-mail]>, on 10/19/99 at 01:08
PM,
   "Chad Myers" <[e-mail]> said:


> > 1. It takes the MS dialer 1 minute 4 seconds to connect to my
> > ISP or 9 others I have tested with using Win 9x. It takes less
> > than 8 seconds using OS/2, DOS, or Win 3.1 This has been confirmed
> > by four of the ISP's as a chronic problem with Win 9x.

> Wow, that's funny, because I've used Win3.1 (with Trumpet), Win95,
> Win98, and NT 4.0 to connect to about 30 different ISPs in my career and
> I have never once experienced what you're talking about.

Well, third party dialers connect virtually instantly. Only Win98 Second
Edition seems to have fixed this bug which undoubtedly lies somewhere in
the grotesquely overbloated IE code segments.

> It sounds more like your ISPs equipment is faulty, or you don't have
> Win9x or the modem configured properly.  I have seen Modems duke it out
> to reach X2, K56Flex, and/or v.90 and they spend minutes like you say
> trying to reach a compatible protocol.

Not at all. The same behavior occurred with IBM.NET, Cyberenet, Bell
Atlantic Net, Erols, and three or four local ISP's including Pics.
Moreover, the owner of PICS is an extremely talented programmer who makes
his primary living writing custom applications for mainframes, midrange,
and PC operating systems. He searched long and hard for the reason before
dropping IE as the default browser and going with Netscape and a custom
dialer he wrote.

> You should try disabling all but V.90, or K56flex. Hell, try it at 28.8
> and see what happens. If it's fast, then you know it's your modem, their
> modem or the phone line.

All possible testing has been done including testing by the local telco.
The problem is a bug in Win 9x.

> > 2. Win 95 and 98 both fail to properly recognize or set up the IDE
> > Busmastering of Tyan motherboards when a PNP NIC is also in the
> > system.

> Sounds like Tyan's busmastering drivers, not Win9x.  I have a tyan MOBO
> and NT/2K and a PNP NIC and busmastering is working.

Funny, but OS/2, Linux, and PC-DOS do not have this problem. It is a bug
in Windows 9x.

> > 3. Win 95 and 98 both fail to heed the setting in Hardware
> > Manager to remove my Wangtek SCSI tape drive from the profile and
> > consistently place it back with a Bang.

> Ah... this is user failure.  It's auto-detecting the hardware again. You
> either need to disable it, or load the proper drivers,
> otherwise, Win9x will keep detecting it incorrectly and loading the
> wrong driver.

No it is not a user failure. I only run MS's Crap excuse for a menu
program for testing. I do not wish to fork over money for a backup program
and drivers for a device which will never see use under the Mickey Mouse
menu program. It has an option to remove the device from this profile and
refuses to do so. This is a bug.

> > 4. With USRobotics V.90 PNP Internal modems (not the winmodem
> > version) both insist in installing a "standard" modem on the same
> > port as the USR modem. Removing it only slows the next boot while it
> > reports it found new hardware and is installing drivers for it.

> Win9x doesn't detect the newer modems correctly sometimes (especially
> USR, for some reason).  Remove the Standard Modem (don't reboot) and
> then load the USR modem drivers.

Another documented bug which MS refuses to fix. FYI, I have done what you
suggest. It still insists on loading a standard modem on the same port and
IRQ as the USR.

> > 5. Applying on-line updates to a machine with non-MS partitions
> > farkles the partition table and MBR of the hard drive on my ThinkPad
> > 390E. I reported this to the OS/2 support group at IBM and was told
> > that they had reported it to MS without response.

> I find that one hard to believe. On-line updates? You mean, the Windows
> Update?  Which one in particular did this?

Yes, the Windows Update. I was told by Mickey Mouse that I first must
download and install a required update. The instructions said after
downloading it would install and reboot the machine. It did. When the
machine rebooted, only the Primary C partition was accessible. Boot
Manager and the extended DOS partition which contained two volumes (D and
E) were gone and could not be recovered.

> This sounds like a ThinkPad thing.  IBM is notorious for having oddities
> like this.

I reproduced the same behavior on one of my consoles running Boot Manager,
WIn 98, and three logical volumes in an extended DOS partition. Boot
Manager and the extended partition were history. A certifiable bug.

> > One of the other two was a problem with Netware and setting up the
> > network administration which Novell also complained to MS about. I
> > forget the exact nature of the problem.

> Novell's software for Windows is horrible and broken. Any problems you
> have with it would, without a doubt, be something broken in Novell's
> code (Examples? Client32, Intranetware Client, NetWare Administrator,
> NWADMIN32, etc)

Since Netware for all other operating systems and pseudo operating systems
such as the DOS addon called Win 9x, is excellent, I do not believe for a
minute that the fault lies anywhere north, south, east, west, over,
beside, or under Redmond.

> > In addition, MS continues to warn that Boot Manager will not work once Win
> > 9x is installed which is pure bullshit. The readme does tell one how to
> > reactivate BM or LILO, etc., but
> >
> > Moreover, when one selects dial up networking only, one gets, in addition
> > to TCP/IP, NetBuei and another protocol as well as MS CHAP authentication
> > which most ISP's do not support. I believe I reported this one, but may
> > not have bothered. This prevents users from properly connecting to their
> > existing ISP's and leads many to subscribing to MSN.

> No, again... there go the conspiracy whackos...
> The reason for this is that most corporations use DUN to connect to
> corporate NT networks for RAS.  In this case, MSCHAP is the best
> protocol. It it VERY easy to switch to PAP or something else and many
> ISPs have walk throughs or scripts that set this up automatically.

In point of fact, most Windows 9x users are NOT on a network. Therefore,
MS has introduced needless overhead, aka a serious bug, to the software.
People on networks either have knowledge or technical support in house.
Individual users lack both.

> You are just grasping at straws now.

> If you were attempting to say that Linux is better because of these few
> exaggerated (or completely false) examples, then you have not a foot to
> stand on because Linux is in much worse shape than this.

No one example is false in any manner whatsoever. Your answers are nothing
more than lies, disinformation, and excuses unworthy of kindergarten
dropout.

You are so stupid you must believe a quarterback is change.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 12:23:15
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> >
> > ...And those who seek conspiracy under every rock and around every corner.
> >
> > What would such motives be?  How could they benefit those who hold them?
> >
> I don't know but I think it's great that you're asking those kinds of
> questions.  People who blindly follow and never question are a danger.

I have yet to receive a satasfactory answer to either of these questions
from those who believe he did have an alterior motive.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 16:42:10
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>> Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality", there
is
>>>>>> nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to suggest that all
>>>>>> such functionality was implemented.

>>>>> Except that there is.  If you claim to implement a standard, then it
>>>>> is assumed that you implement the entire standard.

>>>> The key word here is "if".  Nothing was said about a standard, Mike.

>>> On the contrary, Java 1.2 was "said",

>> That's a reference to a version number, Mike, not a reference to a
>> standard.  Joseph never said that Java 1.1.8 implements the Java 1.2
>> standard.

> Both of you said that it implements Java 1.2 functionality,

Note the absence of the word "standard".

> and the standard defines that functionality.

Irrelevant, Mike.  You don't have to implement the standard to
implement some of the functionality described by that standard.

> If you claim to implement a standard, then it is expected that you
> implement the entire standard.

The key word here, once again, is "if".  Neither of us claimed that
tha standard was implemented, Mike.

> If you claim to implement the functionality of another product, then
> it is expected that you deliver functionality equivalent to that
> other product.

Expected by whom, Mike?  You, and other illogical people like you?
If you call the product 1.1.8 with 1.2 functionality, it is logical
to expect that you do NOT deliver all of the 1.2 functions, otherwise
the product would have been called 1.2 to begin with.

> Neither of these is true in this case.

Because in the case of your first "if", neither of us claimed that the
standard was implemented, and in the case of your second "if", it's
because your expectations are illogical for reasons given above.

>>> If you have JVM which implements Java 1.2, it is expected to run run
>>> Java 1.2 applications.

>> The key word here, once again, is "if".  What Joseph said is "Java 1.2
>> functionality", not "Java 1.2".

> The ability to run Java 1.2 applications is a part of "Java 1.2
> functionality".

Irrelevant, given that IBM never said that that is one of the features
implemented in 1.1.8, Mike.

>>> IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does not implement Java 1.2;

>> IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality, Mike.

> No, it does not.

Incorrect.  Or are you claiming that the Java 2 security classes are
in Jave 1.1?

> The functionality provided by IBM's JDK 1.1.8 is not equivalent to
> Java 1.2.

Irrelevant, given that neither Joseph nor I (nor IBM, for the matter)
said that the functionality in 1.1.8 is equivalent to 1.2.

Of course, I've said that before, but you apparently like to go in
circles.  Arguing for the sake of argument yet again, eh Mike?

>>> if it did, IBM would call it a 1.2 JDK, not a 1.1.8 JDK.

>> IBM is, in fact, calling it 1.1.8 with some 1.2 functionality.  Why do
>> you have such a hard time with that fact, Mike?

> I don't have a hard time with that fact, Dave;

Then why are you arguing about it, Mike?

> I understand the meaning of the word "some".

Then why are you having such a hard time with a statement that implies
"some" by the very fact that the JDK is still called 1.1.8 rather than
1.2?

> Do you?

Obviously not.  I also realize how the use of 1.1.8 implies "some",
because if all of 1.2 was implemented, then IBM would have called
it 1.2.

Simple logic.  But I know how you have trouble with that, Mike.

>> Does it really bother you so much for the facts about Java for OS/2
>> to be mentioned?

> Not at all.

Then why are you still arguing about it, Mike?

> What I was correcting was the *misinformation* about Java for
> OS/2

What alleged misinformation, Mike?

> -- that is, the claim that it delivers the functionality of Java 1.2.

Who made that claim, Mike?  Joseph wrote "Java 1.2 functionality", not
"the functionality of Java 1.2".

> It does not.

It does deliver Java 1.2 functionality, Mike, which is what Joseph wrote.
I've even listed the implemented features, contrary to your prediction.

> It is obviously you who are bothered to see the facts about Java for
> OS/2

Illogical, given that I've been providing those facts.

> -- IBM makes it clear that only *SOME* of the Java 1.2 functionality
> is included,

I've also made that clear, Mike.  So has Joseph.

> yet you insist on ommitting the word "some".

Incorrect.  I've used "some" on several occasions, Mike.  I also
realize that it is superfluous, given that IBM is using the version
number 1.1.8, which would be illogical to do if it implemented all
of the 1.2 functionality.

> Why is that?

You're erroneously presupposing that I've insisted on ommitting [sic]
the word "some".

>>>>> The Integer class is part of the Java 1.2 standard.  But you cannot
claim
>>>>> that you implement Java 1.2 functionality simply because you've
implemented
>>>>> the Integer class.

>>>> Sure you can, Mike

>>> Well, you're still obviously hopeless.

>> How ironic,

> Not so.

On the contrary, it is ironic, given how hopeless your argument is.

> Go publish a JDK that contains only the Integer class, then
> claim that it implements "Java 1.2 functionality".

Irrelevant, given that IBM didn't do that.  But IBM did publish a JDK
that includes Java 2 security classes and Swing, for example, and claims
that it implements Java 1.2 functionality.

> Then see everyone laugh in your face, just like they're doing now.

Who's laughing, Mike, excluding the ones laughing at you?

>> coming from someone whose argument is so hopeless that he
>> needed to resort to the same old deletion tactic.  Here's what I really
>> wrote:
>>
>> DT] Sure you can, Mike, just like the album that includes a few works by
>> DT] Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss can claim to present the music of those
>> DT] composers.
>> DT]
>> DT] Of course, you'd assume that the album includes the entire works by
>> DT] those composers, based on your statement above.  That's your problem.
>>
>> Try dealing with my counterexamples, Mike, rather than just deleting them.

> Your conterexamples are irrelevent;

On the contrary, my counterexamples are quite relevant, Mike.

> we're not talking about composers or albums, nor the words "present" and
> "works".

But we are talking about the interpretation of "implements", which is
analogous to "performs" or "presents".  In all cases, "some" is implicit.

> You can't argue the point at hand,

Incorrect, given that I have been arguing the point at hand.

> so you want to argue a completely different point,

Incorrect, given that I've not brought up any completely different point.

> which you falsely claim is identical.

Where did I make such a claim, Mike?  I called the situation analogous,
not identical.  Still having reading comprehension problems?

> You just want to talk about a different subject,

Incorrect, given that I've not brought up a different subject at all,
Mike.

> because you, as usual, jumped into an argument about a subject which
> you are ignorant of.

Incorrect, given that I haven't jumped into any argument about a subject
with which I'm ignorant.

> The fact of the matter is that IBM claims that OS/2 is "the premiere
> platform for Java development",

How ironic, coming from somebody who just finished complaining about
some alleged attempt to bring up a different subject, and here you are,
doing just that.  The issue is what Joseph wrote, namely that IBM's
Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 implements Java 1.2 functionality, which it does.
Stick to the issue, Mike, or complain to yourself about your attempt to
argue a different subject.

> yet IBM's OS/2 JDKs are slower than their Windows JDKs,

Arguing about a different subject, eh Mike?  Hypocrite.

> and even slower than their Linux JDKs.

Arguing about a different subject, eh Mike?  Hypocrite.

> JDK 1.2 was delivered, in shipping form, on Win32 and Solaris about a
> year ago;

Arguing about a different subject, eh Mike?  Hypocrite.

> despite your claims about "JDK 1.2 functionality", it is still not
> available on OS/2.

On the contrary, the JDK 1.2 functionality that IBM implemented in
JDK 1.1.8 is available on OS/2.

> You can argue about composers all you want,

I see the real issue completely escaped you.  I wasn't arguing about
composers at all, Mike.  I was arguing about the interpretation of
the verb and how "some" is implicit in all those cases.  No wonder
you're having such a hard time dealing with the logic.

> but it doesn't change the facts.

And the fact of the matter is that IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2
implements Java 1.2 functionality.

You can write hundreds more lines, Mike, but you won't change that
fact.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 16:46:06
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

>>>> Lucien writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:

>>>>> Feel free to reread the "costly mistakes" thread, if you're
>>>>> interested; it's still archived on USENET.

>>>> Indeed, complete with an explanation of why you're wrong, and
>>>> complete with your attempt to obfuscate the issue by tossing
>>>> around jargon.

>>>>> Of course, you'll be no more capable of understanding what was
>>>>> going on than Tholen was.

>>>> It's hard to be more capable of understanding what was going go
>>>> than I was, because I understood quite well what was going on,
>>>> including an

>>> Nope. You were lost the whole time.

>> Prove it, if you think you can.

> The proof is in the old thread.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> Reread it.

Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
recollection of the issue.

>>>> understanding of your attempts to obfuscate the issue by tossing
>>>> around jargon.

>>> Wrong. You're still lost.

>> Prove it, if you think you can.

> The proof is in the old thread.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> Reread it.

Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
recollection of the issue.

>>>> The fact that you omitted the crucial word "prevent" from your
>>>> first recent response demonstrates either an intentional attempt to

>>> Wrong.

>> How can you say that before one of the two possibilities even gets
>> mentioned?

> My statements don't affect the inaccuracy of your remarks.

What alleged inaccuracy?  And why didn't you answer the question?

>>>> deceive readers now, or that you did not understand what was going
>>>> on

>>> Still wrong.

>> Prove it, if you think you can.

> The proof is in the old thread.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> Reread it.

Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
recollection of the issue.

>>>> back then, which would be rather ironic, considering the comment
>>>> you made above.

>>> Still wrong...

>> Prove it, if you think you can.

> The proof is in the old thread.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> Reread it.

Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
recollection of the issue.

>>> Quiz grade: F.

>> Note the complete absence of any supporting explanation.  It figures.

> The supporting explanation is in the old thread.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> Reread it.

Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
recollection of the issue.

>> Same old Lucien.

> Quiz retake grade: F.

Note the complete absence of any supporting explanation.  It figures.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 16:57:07
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

> Mike Timbol wrote:

>> I wrote:

>>> Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality",
>>> there is nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to
>>> suggest that all such functionality was implemented.

>> Except that there is.  If you claim to implement a standard, then
>> it is assumed that you implement the entire standard.  Any other
>> interpretation conveys no useful information.  The Integer class
>> is part of the Java 1.2 standard.  But you cannot claim that you
>> implement Java 1.2 functionality simply because you've implemented
>> the Integer class.

> BTW, it's interesting (and humorous) to note that Tholen's new argument
> here is based on the same fallacious reasoning he unknowingly employed
> in the "costly mistakes" thread.

What allegedly fallacious reasoning, Lucien?  Meanwhile, I've pointed
out your own fallacious reasoning, and you had no response.  I'm
referring to the definitions of "implements" and "performs", which do
not imply "all", and the definition of "prevent" which does imply "all".

> Further proof that he never followed along....

How ironic, coming from the person who apparently didn't follow along,
based on the fact that you omitted "prevent" from your recent
recollection.

You're obviously not following along this time either, given the way
you've failed to respond to the argument that if all the functionality
of Java 1.2 had been included in Java 1.1.8, then IBM would have called
it Java 1.2 rather than 1.1.8.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 10:21:28
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > ...And those who seek conspiracy under every rock and around every
corner.
> > >
> > > What would such motives be?  How could they benefit those who hold them?
> > >
> > I don't know but I think it's great that you're asking those kinds of
> > questions.  People who blindly follow and never question are a danger.
>
> I have yet to receive a satasfactory answer to either of these questions
> from those who believe he did have an alterior motive.
>
It is impossible to provide the satisfactory answer you are asking for
since we do not have access to the required information.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 16:51:13
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

>>>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>>>> Joseph wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer,
>>>>>>>>>> bummer.

>>>>>>>>> It's also bullshit.

>>>>>>>> Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2
>>>>>>>> functionality.

>>>>>>>>> Download something like NetBeans, that requires
>>>>>>>>> JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.

>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
>>>>>>>> implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement
>>>>>>>> SOME of it, however.

>>>>>>> On the contrary, your very own logic proves that he said exactly
>>>>>>> that (Re your argument from the "costly mistakes" thread of some
>>>>>>> years ago which you've conveniently forgotten here).

>>>>>> I've not forgotten anything here.  Ironically, you've forgotten
>>>>>> something, namely that my "very own logic" involved the usage of
>>>>>> "prevent", as in "prevent costly mistakes" or "prevent wild
>>>>>> fires", which you insisted was ambiguous.  The quotation above
>>>>>> does not involve anything analogous to "prevent", which is why
>>>>>> Timbol's interpretation is incorrect, and also why your "on the
>>>>>> contrary" is incorrect.

>>>>> Wrong.

>>>> Is that the best you can do?  If you really didn't forget about
>>>> "prevent", then why did you omit such a crucial piece of history?

>> Note:  no response.

Note:  still no response.

>>>>> Go back and reread the thread to find out why.

>>>> Rereading the thread won't explain why you omitted the crucial word
>>>> "prevent" from your first response.

>>> It will reveal why your Java support statement is at odds with the
>>> argument you made 4 years ago in the "costly mistakes" thread

>> No, it won't.

> Yes, it will.

Impossible.

>> The reason is quite clear, as I already noted:  there
>> is nothing analogous to "prevent" in the quotation above.

> Wrong.

Feel free to identify the allegedly analogous word or words, if you
think you can, Lucien.

> Reread the thread,

Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
recollection of the issue.

> it'll explain why your argument about the Java statement (as well
> as the argument below) is wrong.

Impossible.

>> Let's use an example.  Suppose an album cover says:
>>
>>    Encore!
>>    The New York Philharmonic
>>    performs works by
>>    Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss
>>
>> Now, are you going to expect the album to include performances of the
>> complete works by Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss?  You shouldn't,
>> because there's nothing in the definition of the word "performs" to
>> suggest such completeness.
>>
>> Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality", there
>> is nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to suggest that
>> all such functionality was implemented.
>>
>> But when one writes "prevent costly mistakes", there is something in
>> the definition of "prevent" that does suggest all such mistakes.  As
>> I noted the last time we had the discussion, the definition of
>> "prevent" includes "to keep from happening".
>>
>> You can toss around all the X bar syntax you want to obfuscate the
>> issue.  It won't do you any good when you ignore the definitions of
>> the words.

Note:  no response.  I'm not surprised.  Lucien doesn't have one (at
least he doesn't have a logical one).

>>> (if you can follow your own argument therein, that is).

>> I can.  You obviously couldn't.  That's your problem, not mine.

Note:  no response.

>>>> I suggest you reread the thread to find out why you were wrong
>>>> then (and now).  You apparently need to refresh your memory about
>>>> certain critical portions of the argument, like the meaning of
>>>> "prevent".
>>>>
>>>> "Only you can prevent forest fires."
>>>>    --Smokey Bear
>>>>
>>>> "That's ambiguous."
>>>>    --Lucien

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   19-Oct-99 10:45:16
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: [e-mail] (Tim Smith)

Chad Myers <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 5. Applying on-line updates to a machine with non-MS partitions
>> farkles the partition table and MBR of the hard drive on my ThinkPad
>> 390E. I reported this to the OS/2 support group at IBM and was told
>> that they had reported it to MS without response.
>
>I find that one hard to believe. On-line updates? You mean, the
>Windows Update?  Which one in particular did this?

Try running Windows sometime under VMWare in the mode where it runs off a
real partition and restricts writes outside the partition, and you'll catch
Windows writing outside its partition.  I've seen NT do it, and I've had 98
(not running under VMWare) trash random parts of my Linux partition when
trying to format a FAT32 partition--this was 100% repeatable until I just
deleted the FAT32 partition.

I'm guessing this is a bug, not something deliberate, as it was a drive
with 2100 cylinders (yes, that's after LBA has done its thing) and the
FAT32 partition was on the last 200 or so cylinders, so I'm guessing that
they've got a bug in large IDE handling.  I'm not willing to keep having
my Linux partition trashed, so I can't do a proper series of tests to
exactly nail this thing down--I'm just going to give 98 space on a second
drive that has no important Linux partition.

If anyone with a spare big drive wants to try to reproduce it, I think I
can recall the approximate size and layout of my partitions.  Ask in a
followup, and I'll try to remember and post that info.

--Tim Smith
 +----G----D--------G---D-----G-----D----------Em---A7------+-Cat Stevens--+
 |And if I ever lose my eyes, if my colour all runs dry...   \"Moonshadow"/|
 |yes if I ever lose my eyes, oh if..........., I won't have to cry no more|
 +----G----D--------G---D--------Em-A7-D-F#m-Bm---Em------------A------D---+

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 14:05:26
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > >
> > > Marty wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ...And those who seek conspiracy under every rock and around every
corner.
> > > >
> > > > What would such motives be?  How could they benefit those who hold
them?
> > > >
> > > I don't know but I think it's great that you're asking those kinds of
> > > questions.  People who blindly follow and never question are a danger.
> >
> > I have yet to receive a satasfactory answer to either of these questions
> > from those who believe he did have an alterior motive.
> >
> It is impossible to provide the satisfactory answer you are asking for
> since we do not have access to the required information.

Thus making any claims of conspiracy unsubstantiated and unfounded.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]               19-Oct-99 11:22:09
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 04:31:18 GMT, Richard Garrett Molpus wrote:

>>[e-mail] writes:
>>
>>> Word is that there were more exhibitors than attendees at this year's
>>> Warpstock rally.
>>

>I was at Warpstock - as a volunteer. I've helped at a *lot* of SF/F
>cons - (which is why I volunteered - there is ALWAYS a need for
>Volunteers) and have developed an eye to "counting the house".
>

Let him have fun spreading the gospel.   The guy needs that for kicks.   His
statement is actually good news for OS/2 - given that we had several hundred
attendees: that would translate into several hundred exhibitors.    Don't you
love having all those OS/2 ISVs?

By the way, thanks for the hard work, Richard - and all the other folks.
It was a great show!

Incidetally, OS/2 installation got down to 27 seconds on Sunday - instead of
the 28 seconds everybody saw on Saturday - instead of the 29 seconds I was
experiencing on Friday.    Geez.   This thing have a life of it's own.    :=)

<clip>

>
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Richard G. Molpus
>No Profit to high, No quote to ridiculous.
>Ask Me about my Anti-Microsoft bias!
>Praise BOB! or send him $30.00 anyway.




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]               19-Oct-99 11:25:02
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On 19 Oct 1999 13:34:44 GMT, [e-mail] wrote:

>Both of those old concepts
>have been replaced by what is called Network Computing. The 1999
>Version of OS/2 is simply awesome.

Yep.   Couldn't have agreed with you more.

OS/2 is dead.   OS/2 as it existed in 1996 is DEAD.   OS/2 as it existed in
1994 is DEAD.  Praise the God.    If we still have to promote the 1994, and
the 1996 version of OS/2, we will all lose.

This is the era of the "SuperClient".


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 17:58:12
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>

In article <7udqqs$13t$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina writes:
>
> > I think I will indulge in some tholenisms, just for the bad old
times'
> > sake.
>
> I wish you would, like indulging in some logic, but you keep missing
> the mark by a wide margin.

I'm afraid tholenism and logic are incompatible, so I had to choose.

> >>> You were not nominated because of the fact you present, but
because
> >>> of another.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what motivated
you
> >> to submit a nomination.
>
> > The fact for which you were nominated is not the fact that motivated
> > me to nominate you.
>
> You just contradicted yourself.  You just said, in effect, that your
> motivation was not what motivated you.

No, you just didn't understand me. I don't nominate every kook I meet.
I nominate kooks I meet and dislike. You were nominated because of
the fact that you are (IMHO) a kook and that I don't like you.

Your nomination, however says "this guy is a kook because he argues with
eliza" (not an actual quote).

The things mentioned in your nomination are just a subset of the
personal reasons I had to nominate you, and therefore, not the same.

> > Your comprehension problems continue.
>
> How ironic, considering the statement that you just wrote.

And that you completely failed to understand, obviously.

> >> I'm simply noting the irony that you didn't nominate yourself,
after
> >> making such a boneheaded mistake and continuing to insist that you
> >> were right, even after the source of the error was clearly
identified.
>
> > Being wrong is not kooky.
>
> Insisting that you're right, even long after the source of the error
> was identified, is.

Nope.

> > Insisting on mistakes is not kooky.
>
> Insisting that you're right, even long after the source of the error
> was identified, is.

I said "A" and you said, "No, not A". Great argument strategy.

> > Kooky reasons
>
> What's allegedly "kooky" about the reasons, Roberto?

I'm afraid if you can't see it, you can't understand the explanation.

> > for a kook.
>
> Such as yourself.

I actually meant you, (that was obvious for every careful reader).

> > I am not a kook.
>
> Then why did you accuse me of posting an average of 134 articles
> every day?

Because I was wrong.

> > Or at least I do not believe I am a kook.
>
> Your beliefs are irrelevant, Roberto.  Your actions are relevant.

Amazing.

> > Why should I nominate a person I do not believe to be a kook?
>
> Your beliefs are irrelevant, Roberto.  Your actions are relevant.

So, you are saying I should nominate a person I don't believe to
be a kook? You realize how stupid that sounds?

> Your actions include a rather blatant error and a failure to
> admit the error for a long time after the source of the error was
> identified.

I'm afraid you have no clue about what a kook is.

> > That only makes sense in the mind of a kook: you.
>
> I'm not the one who blew the math by an order of magnitude and
> continued to insist that the calculation was correct, even long
> after the source of the error was identified!  That was you who
> did those things.

Yes, but I was not the one that argued with Eliza, and lated denied it,
Dave.

> >>> which everyone who has read your drivel already knows you are.
>
> >> The fact that you erroneously accused me of posting an average of
> >> 134 articles every day is not "drivel".
>
> > Of course it is not.
>
> Glad you agree.
>
> > You didn't post that.
>
> On the contrary, that fact is what I posted in response to Jason S.'s
> recent posting.

You mean when you say "you erroneously accused me of posting an average
of 134 articles every day" that "you" is Dave Tholen?

> >>> The award would have been just a cherry on the cake, a "official"
> >>> acknowledgement of your nuttiness.
>
> >> I'm not the one who botched the math, Roberto.  You did.
>
> > But you are the kook, Dave.
>
> Incorrect.

You are not an impartial judge in the subject. You are trying to pass
opinion as fact. Typical kook. Funny that you claim that my saying
"Dave is a kook" is "truth by proclamation" but your "I am not a kook"
is not.

> >>> Fear not, you're still a kook in my heart.
> >> What you have in your heart is irrelevant to me.
> > But not to me,
>
> Then start your own newsgroup and post articles to which you can
> respond.

If we apply the same standard to you, the world would be a better place
quickly.

> > kooky.
>
> Trying the old "truth by proclamation" approach, eh Roberto?

You did the same thing in this very article at least three times, Dave.
You have a serious double standard problem.

> > Anyway, that was not the only time you argued with a computer
> > program.
>
> I've never argued with a computer program.
>
> > Do you authorize me to show here the other one?
>
> There is no "other one".

Then authorize me to show the exchange you had with my email bouncer.

>  I respond to postings made by people.
> Some of those people post responses using personal attacks; some
> post responses using deletion tactics to avoid dealing with certain
> issues; some post responses generated by computer programs; I deal
> with all those responses.

A posting generated by a computer program without human intervention
is hardly a posting made by "people", Dave.

--
Roberto Alsina



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 15:01:29
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Kim Cheung wrote:
>
> On 19 Oct 1999 13:34:44 GMT, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> >Both of those old concepts
> >have been replaced by what is called Network Computing. The 1999
> >Version of OS/2 is simply awesome.
>
> Yep.   Couldn't have agreed with you more.
>
> OS/2 is dead. [snip]

Careful... you might get "quoted" on this.  ;-)

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 18:38:05
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: (1/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>

In article <7ug7ma$13t$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina writes:

> > I am part of the people.
>
> Irrelevant, given that nothing was said about "part of the people" by
me.

The day only what you say is relevant, is the day I kill myself.

> > Now, if I am part of the people, let me show you why what you said
> > makes no sense:
>
> Irrelevant, given that nothing was said about "part of the people" by
me.

I am part of the peopl, wether you say it or not. Therefore,
"Roberto is part of the people" is a useful hypothesis, wether
you said it or not.

> > My claim:
> > -----
> > Well, Dave, [Your KOTM nomination] should show you that you are not
> > universally seen as the beacon of pure reason and thought you
apparently
> > think you are.
>
> I see you're inserting bracketed material to change the chronology of
> what occurred.

Nope. You are attributing intention without basis, you are passing
opinion [your opinion of my intention] as fact.

> Originally, you used "that", and the immediately
> preceding material to which you were responding involved your
erroneous
> accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day.

I know wat I was talking about better than you , Dave. I was talking
about your KOTM nomination, which was the subject of the thread before
you threw your non-sequitur. I simply ignored your part.

> > -----
> > Let's break that into pieces:
>
> Gee, some people like to complain about sentences being broken into
> pieces.  Where were you when they did so?

There are many ways to break. I like the way I broke my statement.

> > [a] I say you apparently think you are a beacon of pure reason and
> > thought.
>
> On what basis do you say what I appear to think, Roberto?

It appears to me, Dave. That should be obvious.

> > [b] I say that since I don't see you as one, you are not universally
> > seen as one.
>
> And what are your reasons for not seeing me that way, Roberto?

Personal experience.

> Because
> I noted a bit of history involving an embarrassing error of yours?

Not specifically.

> "Well, Roberto, that should show you that you are not universally seen
> as the non-kook you apparently think you are."

If you see me as a kook, then yes, I am not universally seen as a
non-kook. Hardly a challenging statement, just like mine.

> > Since [a] is not a statement of fact but of my personal opinion, you
can
> > not deny it.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I did not deny it.

I am not saying you denied it, I am saying you can't deny it.

> I didn't confirm it either.

I didn't say you confirmed it, I said you can't deny it.

> I simply noted that your statement was illogical as a response to what
I
> had written.

Pot, kettle, black.

> > You can however claim my opinion is wrong,
>
> What I can do is irrelevant.

Says who? I am trying to make an argument here.

>  What I actually did is relevant.  Why don't
> you deal with that, Roberto?

I deal with whatever I want to deal with, Dave.

> > and that you are not a beacon of pure reason and thought (BOPRAT for
> > short).
>
> Apparently you think there is no ground between those two extremes.
> One can be logical while also using emotion to express, for example,
> music.

You can universally be seen as a BOPRAT or you can not be. There is
no middle ground for that. It's binary logic. You can, however,
be seen as a BOPRAT by a majority, or by a minority, or by your friends
and family, or by little green men in mars, but "universally" is a yes
or no.

> > If you are not a BOPRAT, then you are accepting [b],
> > since you are part of the universe,
>
> So are you, Roberto.

Indeed. Thanks for the reminder.

> > and my overall premise is correct.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?


On the lengthy explanation I just gave, against which your only
argument was that some of the middle steps should be removed because
they are "irrelevant".

> > But you didn't do that.
>
> I didn't *not* do that either, Roberto.

I am not saying that you "didn't *not* do that either" Dave.

> There was neither acceptance
> nor non-acceptance on my part.

I just presented the logical consequence of what would have happened
if you did, and specifically (remember the "can"?) marked it as such.

> > You said
> > -----
> > Illogical, given that the above historical account doesn't do
> > anything to contradict any assumption about what people see.
> > -----
>
> I'm well aware of what I said, Roberto.

Good for you.

> > If I am part of the people,
>
> Nothing was said about "part of the people" by me, Roberto.

Dave, you need a refreshment class in classical logic.

> > "people" as a whole can not see you in a way different than my own.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I never said anything about people as a whole,
> Roberto.

You denied my statement, which was precisely about that.

> > Part of the people may, of course, but not "people",
>
> Illogical, given that others are "people", and you do not speak for
> them, Roberto.

When you use a noun, you are by default referring to the entire
object described by it. If "people is A" then all of people is A.
If "part of people is not A" then "not people is A".

> > which presumes a universal agreement by all parts of the
> > people, of which I am one.
>
> That's an illogical presumption, Roberto.

That's ordinary english.

> > Since the historical account shows that I don't see you as a BOPRAT,
> > it contradicts directly an assumption that "people" see you as a
> > BOPRAT.
>
> Illogical, given that you don't speak for others, Roberto.

But I speak for part of the collective of people (my part).
Therefore, the universal opinion of the collective can't be
opposite to my own. I am not saying that the opinion of the collective
is my own either.

> > That's why I said that nominating you for KOTM should
> > have shown you that "people" doesn't see you as a BOPRAT,
>
> You didn't say that, Roberto.

Yes I did.

> Rather, you used the word "that" in a
> response to the immediately preceding material in which I noted your
> erroneous accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day.  Your
> statement didn't include any reference to a nomination.

Your response was referring to the nomination. I know what I wrote.
This is a striking match to your Eliza thing.

You see, you claim here to know better than I what I was writing.
But on the Eliza thing you claim that I can't know better than you
what you were writing. What argument do you prefer to win, Dave?

> > and thus, you should not have that assumption about how people see
> > you.
>
> On what basis do you claim that I do have that assumption, Roberto?

I didn't claim you have that assumption. I claim you should not have it.
If you don't have it, then that's ok with me.

> > Therefore, the historical account does something to contradict the
> > specific assumption about people seing you as a BOPRAT,
>
> On the contrary, my recollection of your erroneous accusation does
> nothing to contradict the specific assumption, given that no
> reasoning is involved.  Instead, recollection is involved.

Since it's now obvious that you were identifying wrongly what I was
referring to with "that", your whole argument is flawed. You simply
didn't read the same thing I wrote.

> >>>>> BTW: you were nominated for being stupid enough to argue with
> >>>>> Eliza.
>
> >>>> Incorrect.  I wasn't stupid enough to argue with Eliza.  I was
> >>>> responding to a real person who was inserting responses generated
> >>>> by an Eliza program.  I realized that.  Others realized that I
> >>>> realized that.  You did not.  How ironic that you should mention
> >>>> being "stupid enough".  Exactly how do you explain your math
error
> >>>> and the long delay in admitting to it?
>
> >>> I need not explain anything to you.
>
> >> Then explain it to the readers.
>
> > I need not explain anything to the readers either.
>
> Then don't blame them for whatever conclusions they might reach about
> you, given your unwillingness to explain your actions.

I don't blame them. I never did.

> >>> That you are still pissed about it 2 years after the fact shows
you
> >>> are indeed a grudgy old fellow, and that you have indeed not grown
> >>> out of it.
>
> >> Same old Alsina.  Even after I explained to you that Jason S.
brought
> >> you up, not me,
>
> > I never said you brought me up.
>
> Then why are you concluding that I'm "still pissed", given that I'm
not
> the one who brought you up?

I say you are still pissed based on what you wrote, Dave.

> > Stop saying it,
>
> I'll say whatever is necessary to make my case, Roberto.

Including lies and half truths? Nice to see you come out of the closet.

> >> here you are, still trying to put the onus on me.
>
> > For the things you did brought up? Yes.
>
> But I didn't bring you up, therefore there is no onus to put on me.
> So why are you trying to do so?

I don't say you brought me up. You brought up something else. I put
on you the onus for it.

> >> Irrelevant, given that my response does have a connection to what
> >> I'm replied to.
>
> > I can't parse that.
>
> That's your problem, Roberto.

I'd say it's your writing.

> >> The fact that you're here, responding to me, raises
> >> interesting questions about your own motivations.  Just how did you
> >> manage to stumble across a reference to you in this newsgroup?
>
> > I notice all references to me in USENET.
>
> Really?  Do you read every single newsgroup to find references to you?

There are this newfangled things called computers. They are good at
repetitive tasks, like pattern matching in massive amounts of text.

> That's pretty bizarre behavior.

Since that's not a behaviour I practice, I don't care if you find it
bizarre.

> >>>>> PS: they weren't 134 a day,
>
> >>>> Then why did you claim there were,
>
> >>> Because I was wrong, Dave, just as I admitted years ago.
>
> >> Not right away.
>
> > Never said I did.
>
> And you never said (logically) why it took you so long to admit it.

I say what I want to say.

> >>>>> but they sure felt like it.
>
> >>>> That wasn't your argument at the time.  You insisted on actual
> >>>> numbers back then, not feelings.
>
> >>> It is my argument of today.
>
> >> Ah, your argument du jour.

Small insert: it is "my argument d'aujourd'hui" not "du jour".

> > Do you feel that writing in french makes you look more correct?
>
> Irrelevant, given that I am not writing in French.

"du jour" is french.

> >> Interesting that your "feeling" has a precision of 134.
>
> > Not necessarily.
>
> Non sequitur.  I'm noting something interesting.  See below for why I
> find it interesting.  Necessity has nothing to do with it.

I am saying that my feeling is not necessarily precise. Your
"interesting" bit is simply not necessarily correct.

> >> Others tend to use "dozens", or "umpteen", or
> >> some other non-specific term when referring to such feelings.
>
> > I don't think I would have felt different with anything from, say,
> > 100 up to 150.
>
> Then why choose 134 rather than "a hundred"?

Why not?

> >> You were specific down to the single posting, and used flawed
> >> mathematics, not feelings, to try and substantiate it.
>
> > You are confusing 1997 and 1999.
>
> Balderdash, Roberto.
>
> > As you said, in 1997 I was not talking about feelings.
>
> So, the explanation you did use was a lie.  Both explanations can't be
> true.

You are confusing facts and feelings. The truth of feelings has no
bearing on the truth of facts.

> > I am doing it now,
>
> All that time, and you couldn't come up with a better explanation.
>
> > and I have not substantiated it in any way,
>
> How could you?  Can you substantiate your feelings?

I didn't say I can. I said I didn't do it. I never do things I can't do.
It's all perfectly logic.

> > much less with flawed mathematics.
>
> Then why did you try that approach the first time, Roberto?

I was not substantiating feelings. That was 1997. Feelings came into
this in 1999. Look at the calendar.

> >> You dug yourself into a hole back then, and I see you're doing it
> >> again, in a feeble attempt to save face.
>
> > At least I have a face to save, Dave.
>
> Too bad you're failing at the save attempt.

Too bad you are faceless.

> >>>>> PPS: preemptive Tholen argument response: they felt like that to
> >>>>> me,
>
> >>>> Irrelevant, given that you didn't refer to feelings back then,
but
> >>>> instead actual numbers.
>
> >>> In case you haven't noticed, the date of this thread is 1999.
>
> >> I have noticed.  Of what relevence is it?  You made your error back
> >> then.
>
> > And that was not on this thread.
>
> On the contrary, my recollection of your error is "on" this thread.

In which they were irrelevant, thus easily ignored.

> >>> What are you, some sort of librarian of ancient anger?
>
> >> What makes you ask that?
>
> > Curiosity.
>
> More like illogic.

No, it's curiosity. Will you answer the question?

> >> What are you, someone who seeks out any
> >> reference to you in any newsgroup?
>
> > Someone who has software to do that for him, actually.
>
> But why?

I explain that right below, Dave. You should read the whole post
before replying (and remember it).

> >> Exactly what drew your attention
> >> to this newsgroup after so long a silence?
>
> > A reference to my name.
>
> That reference was made by Jason S.  Why didn't you respond to him,
> Roberto?

I didn't reply because I didn't believe it demanded an answer.
I don't reply to all references to my name.

> > I do it to keep track of arguments I am involved in.
>
> Are you involved in arguments all over USENET, Roberto?

In more groups than I read. Often I would reply in a thread about a
project I am involved in, on a newsgroup I don't read. Then I keep
track of replies to my post by references to my name.

I also look for references to my projects on all of USENET.

> > When I said "that's subjective, personal opinion" I was not talking
> > about the numbers.
>
> Incorrect:
>
> RA] PPS: preemptive Tholen argument response: they felt like that to
> RA] me, that's subjective, personal opinion,
>
> The subject is clearly "they", which is a reference to the average
> number of articles I posted each day.

"they" is a reference to the articles themselves, not to their number,
Dave. This seems to be the root of all your miscomprehension.

> > I was talking about what I said in a recent post.
>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 18:38:05
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: (2/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

> Incorrect.  You were talking about the erroneous 134 articles a day,
> which you're now trying to pass off as just a "feeling".

Who are you to say what I "talk" about?

> >>>>> so save it for the winter.
>
> >>>> I'll deal with you whenever you choose to respond, Roberto.
>
> >>> I'll deal with you whenever I have no need to be useful to
society.
>
> >> Exactly how does changing your argument (your argument du jour)
> >> benefit society, Roberto?
>
> > In no way.
>
> Then why do it, Roberto?

Why not? You only do things for the benefit of society?

> > That's why I only do it when I am not needing to be useful.
>
> But when you need to lie to try and save face.

Not necessarily.

> > Reading comprehension problems, Dave?
>
> Not at all, Roberto.

Your response to that question is as inevitable and thoughtless as
the drooling of Pavlov's dogs.

--
Roberto Alsina


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                19-Oct-99 21:00:23
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: Warp4-and-HPFS386

From: Peter Stahl <[e-mail]>

It was very easy to install, just unzip the files and change

a couple of lines in CONFIG.SYS.



But HPFS386 couldn't use standard HPFS ACLs so I was forced to make

new ones.



I thought it would be equal easy to change back to standard

HPFS, just change CONFIG.SYS back to old contents, but HPFS

will not change HPFS386's ACLs.



I have tried to delete the ACLs in the same program as I create

new ones (Shared Resources and Network Connections) but HPFS

can't create new usable ACLs and it doesn't function without

ACLs either.



What to do ?



/Peter Stahl







On 25 Aug 1999 21:34:03 -0000, Anonymous wrote:



>This hpfs386 is dated 06/11/99 and is the latest release.

>if you're just using hpfs.ifs,  you can improve your system

>performance with the hpfs386 driver.

>

>The hpfs386 is 32bit and can have any cache size you

>want, plus its about 4x faster at writing and a bit

>faster at reading.  It will improve the speed of your

>system.

>

>

>You'll know it worked when you reboot and a single

>statement across your screen says the hpfs386 driver

>was found.








--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: ABC-Klubben (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 12:36:12
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 16:46:05
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marty wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ...And those who seek conspiracy under every rock and around every
corner.
> > > > >
> > > > > What would such motives be?  How could they benefit those who hold
them?
> > > > >
> > > > I don't know but I think it's great that you're asking those kinds of
> > > > questions.  People who blindly follow and never question are a danger.
> > >
> > > I have yet to receive a satasfactory answer to either of these questions
> > > from those who believe he did have an alterior motive.
> > >
> > It is impossible to provide the satisfactory answer you are asking for
> > since we do not have access to the required information.
>
> Thus making any claims of conspiracy unsubstantiated and unfounded.
>
The talk of conspiracy is yours, not mine.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                              19-Oct-99 20:05:16
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 19:57:21
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: [e-mail] (Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply)

>Anyone who follows such a leader is as stupid as the poor Germans who
>followed Hitler. Neither group is worthy of respect.
>

Well .. anyone who followed Bill Gates  and joined microsoft in the
80s or early 90s will be a millionaire by now.

I doubt any of them will consider it a "stupid" decision.




Kay-Yut

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           19-Oct-99 16:13:09
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 19:57:21
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "(Cybiades) Peter B" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380b7229$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <7ufhds$vtg$[e-mail]>, on 10/18/99 at 11:21 AM,
>    "(Cybiades) Peter B" <[e-mail]> said:
>
>
> > Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:3809aa4b$4$obot$[e-mail]...
>
> > Dude; what is it with you and lemmings? What did Psygnosis ever do to
> > you?
>
> I have no use for mindless imbeciles who blindly follow the leader to
> their own ultimate destruction the way the vast majority of computer
> owners have followed MicroSoft. I have even less use for these idiots when
> the extol the virtues of a company founded on the blood of another and
> advanced by theft from a third person.

Well, my advice to you is to keep yourself off Usenet then. You're bound to
see stuff you don't like every 3.5 seconds. I'm surprised you sleep at
night.

>
> Bill Gates is no more a hero and no less a thief than Willie Sutton, Jesse
> James, Butch Cassidy, etc. MS was founded and originally funded by the
> inventor of the Altair computer, the first 808x based machine. Gates,
> Allen, and company then used the power of Gates' father's law firm to
> screw him out of his just due. Then Gates stole DOS from Seattle Computer,
> eventually forcing the now impoverished owner of DOS into accepting a
> measly $975,000 settlement most of which went to lawyers and back bills.

Whooptey-do...

> Anyone who follows such a leader is as stupid as the poor Germans who
> followed Hitler. Neither group is worthy of respect.

Oh yawn...Godwin's Principle raises its clichΘd face once more.

'Later
Peter

--
Cybiades: Computing for fun!
http://cybiades.home.mindspring.com (version 4+ browsers)
http://www.mindspring.com/~cybiades (version <3 browsers)
Father of Chloe Iris Raquel!
Home of Fels



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Stygoronomous! (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 19-Oct-99 21:36:01
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 19:57:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7ui45f$a2v$[e-mail]>,
 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>>> But any resonable person would realize that you are wrong,
>
>>>>> I am not wrong when I note that a FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
>>>>> Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.
>
>>>> Yes, Dave, you are.
>
>>> No I'm not, Mike.  Even the compiler vendor states that the compiler
>>> implements Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.
>
>> Evidence, please.
>
>WATCOM FORTRAN 77 version 11.0a.  Supports SELECT syntax, DO/END DO
>syntax, and 132 character source lines, for example; not in FORTRAN 77,
>but they are in Fortran 90.

That's not evidence of what the vendor stated, Dave.  Show me the
quote where the compiler vendor states "implements Fortran 90
functionality".  You can't.

What you presented instead is a list of features, then claimed it means
the same thing.  All you're doing is repeating your argument, not
supporting it with evidence.

>>>> If you claim that a particular FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
>>>> Fortran 90 functionality as an extension,
>
>>> The key word here, once again, is "if".  I claimed "extensions", Mike,
>>> not "extension".  That alone should tell you something.
>
>> It doesn't.  Whether the functionality is encapsulated in one extension
>> or multiple extensions is irrelevent.  One expects the functionality
>> to be there.
>
>Incorrect.  One does not expect Fortran 90 functionality to be in a
>FORTRAN 77 compiler.

Yet you claim the FORTRAN 77 compiler implements Fortran 90 functionality.
Why, then, would one not expect Fortran 90 functionality from the
compiler in question?

>> Yet parts of it are apparently missing.
>
>Of course.

Glad you agree.

>>>> would not a reasonable person conclude that the compiler in question
>>>> will compile programs written for Fortran 90?
>
>>> No, because if the compiler supported all of Fortran 90, then the
>>> vendor would obviously call it a Fortran 90 compiler.
>
>> Why so?
>
>For marketing reasons, Mike.  Support for a more recent standard is a
>selling point.

And IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does not support JDK 1.2, the more recent standard.

>>>> Yes, he would.  But that conclusion would be wrong because the
>>>> statement is wrong.
>
>>> Incorrect, given that the statement is not wrong.  The statement is
>>> merely misinterpreted by people like you, who don't understand the
>>> language properly.
>
>> No, the statement is wrong.  If "Fortran 90 functionality" is
>> promised, then one expects functionality equivalent to Fortran 90.
>
>Illogical. If one expects functionality equivalent to Fortran 90, then
>the compiler would have been called a Fortran 90 compiler, Mike.  It
>wasn't.  That alone should tell you something.  Why do you think IBM is
>calling their JDK 1.1.8 rather than 1.2?

Because it doesn't support the functionality of JDK 1.2, which is the
point.  Glad you agree.

>>>>>> If the intent of the statement is that JDK 1.1.8 implements the
>>>>>> features found in JDK 1.1.8, why mention JDK 1.2 at all?
>
>>>>> The key word here is "if".  The intent is to note how IBM has
>>>>> incorporated some Java 1.2 features in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
>
>>>> What, then, makes something a "Java 1.2" feature?
>
>>> A feature in Java 1.2 that wasn't in Java 1.1, Mike.
>
>> There are many features in Java 1.2 that weren't in JDK 1.1.  However,
>> some of those features were introduced in JDK 1.1.1 -> JDK 1.1.7.
>> Do those qualify?
>
>Obviously not, given that we're talking about 1.1.8, Mike.

I'll note this for future reference.

>>>> Which features are you referring to?
>
>>> The features from Java 1.2 that IBM chose to implement in Java 1.1.8,
>>> Mike.
>
>> Which features would those be?
>
>Java 2 security classes,

Wrong.  IBM did not implement Java 2 security classes in Java 1.1.8.
The extra security classes that they include in the Java 1.1.8 JDK are
not included in Java 1.2.  In fact, they are not allowed to do what
you claim; licensees are barred from adding classes into the namespace
of the the core JDK packages.

>Remote Method Invocation over IIOP,

Wrong.  RMI over IIOP is not a Java 2 feature; it is a standard
extension.

  http://java.sun.com/products/rmi-iiop/index.html

  Remote Method Invocation (RMI) over Internet Inter-Orb Protocol
  (IIOP) delivers Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA)
  compliant distributed computing capabilities to the JavaTM 2
  platform and to the Java Development Kit (JDKTM) 1.1.

It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.

>the COMM API,

Wrong.  The Communications API is also not a part of Java 2.

  http://java.sun.com/products/javacomm/javadocs/CommAPI_FAQ.txt

  Q: Will it be part of the JDK?

  A: The Java communications API will be a Java Standard
     Extension, it will not be part of the core JDK.

It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK

>and Swing, for example.

Swing was introduced before Java 2.

It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.

Sorry, you're 0 for 4.  It's say "nice try", but that was pretty pathetic.


>> You are, once again, arguing from a position of arrogant ignorance.
>
>On the contrary, I am, once again, arguing from a position of knowledge
>and logic.

Then why are all of your answers wrong?  Because you really have no idea
what you're talking about.  As usual.

     - Mike


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 19-Oct-99 21:28:12
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 19:57:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7ui71d$ddq$[e-mail]>,
 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>> If you claim to implement the functionality of another product, then
>> it is expected that you deliver functionality equivalent to that
>> other product.
>
>Expected by whom, Mike?  You, and other illogical people like you?
>If you call the product 1.1.8 with 1.2 functionality, it is logical
>to expect that you do NOT deliver all of the 1.2 functions, otherwise
>the product would have been called 1.2 to begin with.

Not so.  The name of the product is irrelevent.  If you claim it
offers the functionality of another product, one expects it to
provide that functionality.  It does not.

In fact, if the functionality is provided in a non-standard way,
IBM is forbidden from calling the product JDK 1.2.

>>>> If you have JVM which implements Java 1.2, it is expected to run run
>>>> Java 1.2 applications.
>
>>> The key word here, once again, is "if".  What Joseph said is "Java 1.2
>>> functionality", not "Java 1.2".
>
>> The ability to run Java 1.2 applications is a part of "Java 1.2
>> functionality".
>
>Irrelevant, given that IBM never said that that is one of the features
>implemented in 1.1.8, Mike.

IBM didn't make the claim that JDK 1.1.8 "implements Java 1.2
functionality."  You've been making that claim.  Don't put the onus
on IBM.

>>>> IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does not implement Java 1.2;
>
>>> IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality, Mike.
>
>> No, it does not.
>
>Incorrect.  Or are you claiming that the Java 2 security classes are
>in Jave 1.1?

The Java 2 security classes are in Java 2.  They are not in JDK 1.1.8.
What makes you think they are?

>>>> if it did, IBM would call it a 1.2 JDK, not a 1.1.8 JDK.
>
>>> IBM is, in fact, calling it 1.1.8 with some 1.2 functionality.  Why do
>>> you have such a hard time with that fact, Mike?
>
>> I don't have a hard time with that fact, Dave; I understand the meaning
>> of the word "some".  Do you?
>
>Obviously not.

Glad you agree.

>>> Does it really bother you so much for the facts about Java for OS/2
>>> to be mentioned?
>
>> Not at all.  What I was correcting was the *misinformation* about Java
>> for OS/2 -- that is, the claim that it delivers the functionality of
>> Java 1.2.  It does not.
>
>It does deliver Java 1.2 functionality, Mike, which is what Joseph wrote.
>I've even listed the implemented features, contrary to your prediction.

Your list is wrong.

>> Go publish a JDK that contains only the Integer class, then
>> claim that it implements "Java 1.2 functionality".
>
>Irrelevant, given that IBM didn't do that.  But IBM did publish a JDK
>that includes Java 2 security classes and Swing, for example, and claims
>that it implements Java 1.2 functionality.

You are wrong on both of these counts, Dave.  IBM's JDK does not include
the Java 2 security classes, nor does it include Swing.  Furthermore,
Swing was introduced before Java 2.

Download the IBM's JDK 1.1.8 and tell me which security classes introduced
with Java 2 are included?  You won't find any.  Tell me which swing classes
are included?  You won't find any.

>> Then see everyone laugh in your face, just like they're doing now.
>
>Who's laughing, Mike, excluding the ones laughing at you?

Anyone who understands anything about Java.  You're not included, which
is why you don't realize it.  You're babbling on about Java, yet your
knowledge of the subject at hand is limited to your incomplete
understanding of what you read on IBM's web site.

>> You just want to talk about a different subject, because you, as
>> usual, jumped into an argument about a subject which you are
>> ignorant of.
>
>Incorrect, given that I haven't jumped into any argument about a subject
>with which I'm ignorant.

Then why did you claim that JDK 1.1.8 implements Java 2 security classes
when it does not?  Then why did you claim Swing is part of IBM's JDK
1.1.8 when it is not?  Why are you claiming Swing is "Java 1.2
functionality" when you earlier claimed that only features introduced
with Java 1.2 qualify?

Because you are ignorant of the subject at hand.  As usual.

     - Mike


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 21:53:11
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 21:35:07
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: [e-mail]

In article <uuQO3.11795$[e-mail]>,
  "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Say, isn't there some "law" that claims that after a while someone
> will mention Hitler or the nazi's?

You're thinking of Godwin's Law, which essentially states that, in an
advocacy debate in USENET, the probability that someone will reference
Nazi Germany approaches one as the length of the debate (in terms of
time) increases.

IOW, when people argue in USENET long enough, it's inevitable that
somebody will eventually make some kind of comparison to the Nazis,
Hitler, etc.  Whomever does this loses the debate by default.

-- snip --


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 22:12:16
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 21:35:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7uh8qr$h3h$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] (Mike Timbol) wrote:
> In article <7ugqpg$9r6$[e-mail]>,
> Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >Mike Timbol writes:

-- snip --

> >IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality, Mike.
>
> No, it does not.  The functionality provided by IBM's JDK 1.1.8 is not
> equivalent to Java 1.2.

-- snip --

Ahh, the wonders of the Ambiguities of English . . .

That's one problem with debate -- one has to choose words very
carefully.  To say that "X implements Y functionality" really doesn't
mean much, unless it's qualified. Does X implement *all* of  Y's
funtionality, or only *some* of it?  Unfortunately, the original quote
can be correctly interpreted both ways, and arguing that one
interpretation is "more correct" than the other is just as meaningless
as the original quote itself.

Specifically, if one looks at the available facts, it's reasonable
to conclude that IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 does not implement *all* of
1.2's functionality, but only *some* of it (assuming that it
implements *any* of it at all). If that wasn't the case (i.e., if it
implemented *all* of 1.2's funtionality), it stands to reason that the
JDK would have been *called* 1.2.

OTOH, to flat out state that 1.1.8 *does not* implement 1.2
functionality implies that it doesn't implement *any* of 1.2's
funtionality, which is also incorrect (again, assuming that 1.1.8 does
indeed implement any 1.2 funtionality at all).

So, you're both wrong, and right. :)


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 17:58:01
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 21:35:07
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > >
> > > Marty wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Marty wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...And those who seek conspiracy under every rock and around every
corner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What would such motives be?  How could they benefit those who hold
them?
> > > > > >
> > > > > I don't know but I think it's great that you're asking those kinds
of
> > > > > questions.  People who blindly follow and never question are a
danger.
> > > >
> > > > I have yet to receive a satasfactory answer to either of these
questions
> > > > from those who believe he did have an alterior motive.
> > > >
> > > It is impossible to provide the satisfactory answer you are asking for
> > > since we do not have access to the required information.
> >
> > Thus making any claims of conspiracy unsubstantiated and unfounded.
> >
> The talk of conspiracy is yours, not mine.

Actually, it was hinted at by the poster to whom I originally responded,
not to mention several other persons historically.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                              19-Oct-99 17:51:15
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 21:35:07
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Chad Myers" <[e-mail]>

"Bob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380c9ca3$2$obot$[e-mail]...

>
> Well, third party dialers connect virtually instantly. Only Win98
> Second Edition seems to have fixed this bug which undoubtedly lies
> somewhere in the grotesquely overbloated IE code segments.


Or perhaps it exists in your mind? I have not, nor have I heard of
anyone else experiencing this.

Perhaps it's your grotesquely overbloated imaginative FUD?

> Not at all. The same behavior occurred with IBM.NET, Cyberenet,
> Bell Atlantic Net, Erols, and three or four local ISP's
> including Pics. Moreover, the owner of PICS is an
> extremely talented programmer who makes his primary living writing
> custom applications for mainframes, midrange, and PC operating
> systems. He searched long and hard for the reason before dropping
> IE as the default browser and going with Netscape and a custom
> dialer he wrote.

Where do you get this stuff?

So you're saying that EVERY Win9x user using IBM.NET, Erols, et al is
experiencing this behavior?

I have news for you, they're not. It only appears to be you.

As far as the owner of PICS, I have no idea what you're talking about
and I can make up people too, if you want to get into that battle.

> All possible testing has been done including testing by the local
> telco. The problem is a bug in Win 9x.

A bug in Win9x that ONLY occurrs on your machines when connecting to
a few ISPs and no one else has ever experienced this.

Uh huh, sure.

> > Sounds like Tyan's busmastering drivers, not Win9x.  I have a tyan
> > MOBO and NT/2K and a PNP NIC and busmastering is working.
>
> Funny, but OS/2, Linux, and PC-DOS do not have this problem. It is a
> bug in Windows 9x.

Again, more FUD.  I have used Tyan MOBOs in the past and have not
experienced this. Perhaps it's the PNP card?

> No it is not a user failure. I only run MS's Crap excuse for a
> menu program for testing. I do not wish to fork over money for a
> backup program and drivers for a device which will never see use
> under the Mickey Mouse menu program. It has an option to remove the
> device from this profile and refuses to do so. This is a bug.

See, you're so biased and blinded, you can't see that it's most likely
a problem with you (since no one else seems to have these problems).

Stick with Linux because you're so blind you'd never be able to handle
Windows.

Did you lose your job because your company realized they were wasting
too much money on Un*x and replaced with NT and are having a better
exprience so now you're jaded?

> Another documented bug which MS refuses to fix. FYI, I have done
> what you suggest. It still insists on loading a standard modem on
> the same port and IRQ as the USR.


I just said that USR modems are usually not detected correctly by
Win9x, you have to load the driver manually, which part of this
don't you understand?

I have done this 100 times, I know it works.

I would point the finger at 3COM on this one since they provide
OEM drivers to Microsoft for Windows releases.

3Com ranks in the top 10 of worst drivers.

> Yes, the Windows Update. I was told by Mickey Mouse that I first
must
> download and install a required update. The instructions said after
> downloading it would install and reboot the machine. It did. When
the
> machine rebooted, only the Primary C partition was accessible. Boot
> Manager and the extended DOS partition which contained two volumes
(D and
> E) were gone and could not be recovered.

Yeah, you know all those Win9x updates that screw with the MBR.
hah.. please.

<sigh> I have installed the Win95 and the Win98 updates on dozens
of very different machines at many different client sites and have
never experienced anything like this.

I have several trible-boot machines (NT or 2K/98/Linux) at home and
have never had this problem. They were all installed in varying
orders several different times.

Sounds like user-failure again or simply IBM anonmolies.

Or... more likely, simple lies and FUD aimed to help you vent your
anger for the job you loss?

> I reproduced the same behavior on one of my consoles running Boot
> Manager, WIn 98, and three logical volumes in an extended DOS
> partition. Boot Manager and the extended partition were history.
> A certifiable bug.


Sounds like Boot manager is the culprit here.

Which update in particular?  Can you even name it or are you
just FUDing again?

> Since Netware for all other operating systems and pseudo
> operating systems such as the DOS addon called Win 9x, is
> excellent, I do not believe for a minute that the fault lies
> anywhere north, south, east, west, over, beside, or under Redmond.

NetWare for all other operating systems? What other operating systems
does NetWare run on?  IIRC, I thought NetWare was an OS?
Perhaps I'm wrong, or you're just stupid.

Anyone who has used Novell's software on any windows machine would
agree with me that Novell can't write a Win32 app to save their life.

Client32 has caused more disasters than any Linux box could dream of.

You FUD blinds you. You should take your eyes off your green screen
for a little while, you're getting brainwashed.

> In point of fact, most Windows 9x users are NOT on a network.
> Therefore, MS has introduced needless overhead, aka a serious bug,
> to the software. People on networks either have knowledge or
> technical support in house. Individual users lack both.



Heh.. show me numbers saying that a majority of Win9x users are
consumer.  How many PCs are sold to consumers compared to
Corporations?

I bet you will find that most PCs are in corporations.
Anyhow, it's very easy to switch from MSCHAP to something else.

Besides, most comercial dial-in solutions are MSCHAP compliant.

Ascend comes to mind, Cisco, etc.

Your claim that it's an MS conspiracy to get people to use MSCHAP is
pure FUD

Oh.. and that's right, I forgot that setting up PPP in Linux was
a one-step process right? HAH!

> No one example is false in any manner whatsoever. Your answers are
> nothing more than lies, disinformation, and excuses unworthy of
> kindergarten dropout.

All your examples are gross exaggerations or outright lies.

You have no credibility because you spend more time bashing MS than
citing facts.

> You are so stupid you must believe a quarterback is change.

Ah.. and there you go. To sum it up, Bobo results to name calling.

Brilliant Bob, can we get an encore of your ignornace?

It's quit amusing, really.

Ok, you've worn out all credibility and it's obvious you're lying
outright simply to vent your undue frustrations and you're
inadequacies when dealing with computers (even simple Win9x).

Anyone else agree with me?

That's right.. Thanks for playing!  *PLONK*

Chad



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Jump.Net (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                18-Oct-99 19:12:27
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:35:27
Subj: WIN2K slips into a worm-hole...

From: [e-mail] (Jerry McBride)

I got this, this morning... And I said it once and I'll say it again...
You gotta' love this microsoft shit...

The word in quotes is my addition... You gotta' read the URL...

===========================================================
THE INFOWORLD SCOOP                      NETWORKING EDITION
===========================================================

Monday, October 18, 1999

WINDOWS 2000 UP IN THE AIR

Questions continue to swirl around Microsoft's monolithic
Windows 2000 operating system, with speculation over
the launch date becoming rampant as the company pulled
yet another "key" feature from the operating system.

In a keynote address at the Gartner IT Symposium in
Orlando, Fla., last week, Microsoft President Steve
Ballmer remained vague about the delivery of Windows
2000, saying only that it would ship sometime in the next
several months.

For the full story:
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?991015.hnwin2k.htm

------------------------------------------------------


--

*******************************************************************************

*            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...
*
*       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.151 for your next java project at:
*
*
*
*                      GET IT NOW! WHILE IT'S STILL FREE!
*
*
*
*                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx
*
*******************************************************************************


/----------------------------------------\
| From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
|         [e-mail]             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TEAM-NETREXX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            18-Oct-99 20:40:00
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:35:28
Subj: John Carmack and OSses

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/10/15/1012230.shtml
--
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             18-Oct-99 17:40:09
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:35:28
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Marty wrote:

> Were you involved in any meetings with IBM over a new OS/2 client?  Brad
> W. was.  Sorry, but that gives him some weight.  A lot more weight than
> your opinions, for sure.
>
Do you mean the IPMT meeting that, unbeknownst to Brad, was cancelled
because of the hurricane?  Or the earlier meeting that Brad didn't know
about?  Yeah, I can see that Brad was R-E-A-L close to the decision
process.  The only thing Brad seems to know for sure is what IBM
indicated to him with that clear message.  But the indications don't
seem to have happened in an actual meeting with an actual statement.

We are, of course, free to give Brad Wardell's statements and claims all
of the weight to which we think they are entitled.  But please recognize
that whatever weight you choose to give them is based on your faith in
Brad Wardell and not on any actual FACTS.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               18-Oct-99 20:48:26
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:35:28
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/10/15/1012230.shtml

Let me be the first to issue the patented, "But what does this have to
do with OS/2?"

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               18-Oct-99 20:53:25
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:35:28
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
>
> > Were you involved in any meetings with IBM over a new OS/2 client?  Brad
> > W. was.  Sorry, but that gives him some weight.  A lot more weight than
> > your opinions, for sure.
> >
> Do you mean the IPMT meeting that, unbeknownst to Brad, was cancelled
> because of the hurricane?  Or the earlier meeting that Brad didn't know
> about?  Yeah, I can see that Brad was R-E-A-L close to the decision
> process.  The only thing Brad seems to know for sure is what IBM
> indicated to him with that clear message.  But the indications don't
> seem to have happened in an actual meeting with an actual statement.
>
> We are, of course, free to give Brad Wardell's statements and claims all
> of the weight to which we think they are entitled.  But please recognize
> that whatever weight you choose to give them is based on your faith in
> Brad Wardell and not on any actual FACTS.

Likewise is true of those who have some irrational hatred or distrust of
his words.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            18-Oct-99 21:24:24
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:35:28
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>>
>> http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/10/15/1012230.shtml
>
>Let me be the first to issue the patented, "But what does this have to
>do with OS/2?"
>
>- Marty
>

I just thought it was interesting. Don't you? After all, he is a fellow game
maker.

--
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      19-Oct-99 02:14:25
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:00
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Say, isn't there some "law" that claims that after a while someone will
mention Hitler or the nazi's?

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380b7229$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <7ufhds$vtg$[e-mail]>, on 10/18/99 at 11:21 AM,
>    "(Cybiades) Peter B" <[e-mail]> said:
>
>
> > Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:3809aa4b$4$obot$[e-mail]...
>
> > Dude; what is it with you and lemmings? What did Psygnosis ever do to
> > you?
>
> I have no use for mindless imbeciles who blindly follow the leader to
> their own ultimate destruction the way the vast majority of computer
> owners have followed MicroSoft. I have even less use for these idiots when
> the extol the virtues of a company founded on the blood of another and
> advanced by theft from a third person.
>
> Bill Gates is no more a hero and no less a thief than Willie Sutton, Jesse
> James, Butch Cassidy, etc. MS was founded and originally funded by the
> inventor of the Altair computer, the first 808x based machine. Gates,
> Allen, and company then used the power of Gates' father's law firm to
> screw him out of his just due. Then Gates stole DOS from Seattle Computer,
> eventually forcing the now impoverished owner of DOS into accepting a
> measly $975,000 settlement most of which went to lawyers and back bills.
>
> Anyone who follows such a leader is as stupid as the poor Germans who
> followed Hitler. Neither group is worthy of respect.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 9
> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> Aut Pax Aut Bellum
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @home (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         19-Oct-99 02:35:10
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:00
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> David H. McCoy wrote:

>> http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/10/15/1012230.shtml

> Let me be the first to issue the patented, "But what does this have to
> do with OS/2?"

Who patented that, Marty?

By the way, if you used the Find option in Netscape with OS/2 as the
argument, you would have found the text that has to do with OS/2.
Nothing new, of course.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         19-Oct-99 02:47:22
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:00
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>> Well, by the prized logic of Dave Tholen, one could say DOS implements
>>> OS/2 functionality.

>> Don't try to pass off your statements as my logic, Mike.

> That is your logic, Dave.

No, it is not, Mike.

> OS/2 can read a FAT-formatted floppy disk.

FAT came before OS/2, Mike.

> So can DOS.  Thus, DOS implements *some* functionality that OS/2 does.

DOS had that functionality before OS/2 existed, Mike.  Get your
chronology straight.

> Thus, by your logic, one could say that "DOS implements OS/2
> functionality".

Don't try to pass off your statements as my logic, Mike.

>>> You cannot use JDK 1.1.8 to run a program designed for JDK 1.2.

>> That depends on whether the program uses features that were or were
>> not implemented in JDK 1.1.8, Mike.
>>
>> I can use a FORTRAN 77 compiler to compile a program designed for
>> Fortran 90.  It just so happens that the FORTRAN 77 compiler
>> implements certain Fortran 90 features as extensions.  That doesn't
>> mean it can compile every program designed for Fortran 90.

> Then, by your logic, one could claim that FORTRAN 77 implements
> Fortran 90 functionality.

Don't try to pass off your statements as my logic, Mike.  What I
really said is that a particular FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
Fortran 90 functionality.  That's the problem with you trying to
pass off your statements as my logic.  You still have the same
old reading comprehension problems.

> And, by your logic, you would be correct.

Don't try to pass off your statements as my logic, Mike.  You cearly
have trouble understanding my logic.

> But any resonable person would realize that you are wrong,

I didn't make the statements, Mike.  You did.  You are wrong, not me.
I am not wrong when I note that a FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.

> or that you are butchering the language so as to make your statement
> meaningless.

I didn't make the statements, Mike.  You did.  You are butchering the
language, not me.

>> You're wrong once again and are obviously trying very hard to save
>> face.

> I'm not wrong, Dave.

Yes you are, Mike, because IBM's Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 does implement
Java 1.2 functionality.

> Ask a reasonable person if JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2 functionality.

I already did, Mike.  That reasonable person wasn't you, of course.

> Ask a reasonable person if DOS implements OS/2 functionality.

Still can't get your chronology straight, can you, Mike?

> The answer will be no.

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?  There were some releases
of DOS that postdate OS/2, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility
that the DOS developers implemented something they saw in OS/2.  FAT,
however, does not qualify.

> If the intent of the statement is that JDK 1.1.8 implements the
> features found in JDK 1.1.8, why mention JDK 1.2 at all?

The key word here is "if".  The intent is to note how IBM has
incorporated some Java 1.2 features in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.  That's
why 1.2 gets mentioned at all.  Amazing that you haven't figured
that out yet.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         19-Oct-99 02:53:27
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:00
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>> Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality", there is
>> nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to suggest that all
>> such functionality was implemented.

> Except that there is.

Balderdash, Mike.  I suggest you reread the other example I provided, one
that you happened to delete from your followup.

> If you claim to implement a standard, then it is assumed that you implement
> the entire standard.

The key word here is "if".  Nothing was said about a standard, Mike.  Just
because you might assume something doesn't mean it's logical to do so.

> Any other interpretation conveys no useful information.

Incorrect.  The fact that Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 includes some of Java 1.2
functionality is useful information.

> The Integer class is part of the Java 1.2 standard.  But you cannot claim
> that you implement Java 1.2 functionality simply because you've implemented
> the Integer class.

Sure you can, Mike, just like the album that includes a few works by
Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss can claim to present the music of those
composers.

Of course, you'd assume that the album includes the entire works by
those composers, based on your statement above.  That's your problem.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 19-Oct-99 03:09:14
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:00
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7ugmg2$642$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>> Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality", there is
>>> nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to suggest that all
>>> such functionality was implemented.
>
>> Except that there is.  If you claim to implement a standard, then it
>> is assumed that you implement the entire standard.
>
>The key word here is "if".

Glad you agree.

>Nothing was said about a standard, Mike.

On the contrary, Java 1.2 was "said", which is a standard defined by Sun.
If you have JVM which implements Java 1.2, it is expected to run run
Java 1.2 applications.  IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does not implement Java 1.2; if
it did, IBM would call it a 1.2 JDK, not a 1.1.8 JDK.

>> The Integer class is part of the Java 1.2 standard.  But you cannot claim
>> that you implement Java 1.2 functionality simply because you've implemented
>> the Integer class.
>
>Sure you can, Mike

Well, you're still obviously hopeless.

     - Mike



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 19-Oct-99 03:32:00
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:00
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7ugm4h$642$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>> But any resonable person would realize that you are wrong,
>
>I am not wrong when I note that a FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
>Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.

Yes, Dave, you are.  If you claim that a particular FORTRAN 77 compiler
implements Fortran 90 functionality as an extension, would not a
reasonable person conclude that the compiler in question will compile
programs written for Fortran 90?  Yes, he would.  But that conclusion
would be wrong because the statement is wrong.

>>> You're wrong once again and are obviously trying very hard to save
>>> face.
>
>> I'm not wrong, Dave.
>
>Yes you are, Mike, because IBM's Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 does implement
>Java 1.2 functionality.

Evidence, please.  What "Java 1.2 functionality" do you refer to?  Can
I use weak references?  No.  Does it include the 1.2 collection classes?
No.  Can I use Graphics 2D?  No.  Gee, seems like it does a pretty
poor job of implement "Java 1.2 functionality".

>> Ask a reasonable person if JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2 functionality.
>
>I already did, Mike.

You're lying again, of course.

>> Ask a reasonable person if DOS implements OS/2 functionality.
>
>Still can't get your chronology straight, can you, Mike?

There's no mention of chronology in my statement.  Explain how
chronology affects your claim that JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2
functionality?  You can't, obviously.

>> The answer will be no.
>
>On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

The basis of a reasonable person.

>> If the intent of the statement is that JDK 1.1.8 implements the
>> features found in JDK 1.1.8, why mention JDK 1.2 at all?
>
>The key word here is "if".  The intent is to note how IBM has
>incorporated some Java 1.2 features in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.

What, then, makes something a "Java 1.2" feature?  Which features
are you referring to?

>That's why 1.2 gets mentioned at all.

Note the two following sentences:

  1. "JDK 1.1.8 implements some features found in JDK 1.2"
  2. "JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2 functionality"

Do these mean the same thing?  No, they do not.  Note the definition:

  functionality

  The capabilities or behaviours of a program, part of a program or
  system, seen as the sum of its features. Roughly, "the things it can
  do". Generally used in a comparitive sense, e.g. "The latest update adds
  some useful functionality".

Does JDK 1.1.8 implement "the sum of features" of JDK 1.2?  No, it
does not.

     - Mike

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   18-Oct-99 21:02:15
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:00
Subj: Re: IBM's Marketing Skills

From: [e-mail] (Tim Smith)

Bob Germer  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Take, for example, refrigerators. There are dozens of brands in a large
>appliance store. But most are made by two companies which own such brand
>names as Gibson, Whirlpool, Frigidaire. Take for example home stoves. You
>can find the Hotpoint brand in stores as well as ones with GE's name. But
>neither is a product of General Electric any more, GE sold the names.

GE still lists all kinds of home applicances on their web site.  It sure
looks like no one told them they sold the names and left the market. :-)

--Tim Smith

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         19-Oct-99 04:07:06
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:03
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>> Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality", there is
>>>> nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to suggest that all
>>>> such functionality was implemented.

>>> Except that there is.  If you claim to implement a standard, then it
>>> is assumed that you implement the entire standard.

>> The key word here is "if".

> Glad you agree.

Too bad your premise doesn't apply to this case, Mike.

>> Nothing was said about a standard, Mike.

> On the contrary, Java 1.2 was "said",

That's a reference to a version number, Mike, not a reference to a
standard.  Joseph never said that Java 1.1.8 implements the Java 1.2
standard.  Don't try to put words into either his mouth or mine.

> which is a standard defined by Sun.

It's not a standard as used by Joseph Coughlan or me, Mike.

> If you have JVM which implements Java 1.2, it is expected to run run
> Java 1.2 applications.

The key word here, once again, is "if".  What Joseph said is "Java 1.2
functionality", not "Java 1.2".

> IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does not implement Java 1.2;

IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality, Mike.

> if it did, IBM would call it a 1.2 JDK, not a 1.1.8 JDK.

IBM is, in fact, calling it 1.1.8 with some 1.2 functionality.  Why do
you have such a hard time with that fact, Mike?  Does it really bother
you so much for the facts about Java for OS/2 to be mentioned?

>>> The Integer class is part of the Java 1.2 standard.  But you cannot claim
>>> that you implement Java 1.2 functionality simply because you've
implemented
>>> the Integer class.

>> Sure you can, Mike

> Well, you're still obviously hopeless.

How ironic, coming from someone whose argument is so hopeless that he
needed to resort to the same old deletion tactic.  Here's what I really
wrote:

DT] Sure you can, Mike, just like the album that includes a few works by
DT] Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss can claim to present the music of those
DT] composers.
DT]
DT] Of course, you'd assume that the album includes the entire works by
DT] those composers, based on your statement above.  That's your problem.

Try dealing with my counterexamples, Mike, rather than just deleting them.

Oh, you can't, logically; right?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      18-Oct-99 21:40:04
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:03
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Godwin's Principle.

Drestin Black wrote in message ...
>Say, isn't there some "law" that claims that after a while someone will
>mention Hitler or the nazi's?
>
<snip>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary Organization (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             18-Oct-99 21:41:21
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:03
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>

Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> >
> > > Were you involved in any meetings with IBM over a new OS/2 client?  Brad
> > > W. was.  Sorry, but that gives him some weight.  A lot more weight than
> > > your opinions, for sure.
> > >
> > Do you mean the IPMT meeting that, unbeknownst to Brad, was cancelled
> > because of the hurricane?  Or the earlier meeting that Brad didn't know
> > about?  Yeah, I can see that Brad was R-E-A-L close to the decision
> > process.  The only thing Brad seems to know for sure is what IBM
> > indicated to him with that clear message.  But the indications don't
> > seem to have happened in an actual meeting with an actual statement.
> >
> > We are, of course, free to give Brad Wardell's statements and claims all
> > of the weight to which we think they are entitled.  But please recognize
> > that whatever weight you choose to give them is based on your faith in
> > Brad Wardell and not on any actual FACTS.
>
> Likewise is true of those who have some irrational hatred or distrust of
> his words.

And also of those who are blind to the possibility of ulterior motives
and actions.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         19-Oct-99 04:36:14
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:03
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>> But any resonable person would realize that you are wrong,

>> I am not wrong when I note that a FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
>> Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.

> Yes, Dave, you are.

No I'm not, Mike.  Even the compiler vendor states that the compiler
implements Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.  Why do you have
such a hard time dealing with that fact, Mike?

> If you claim that a particular FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
> Fortran 90 functionality as an extension,

The key word here, once again, is "if".  I claimed "extensions", Mike,
not "extension".  That alone should tell you something.

> would not a reasonable person conclude that the compiler in question
> will compile programs written for Fortran 90?

No, because if the compiler supported all of Fortran 90, then the
vendor would obviously call it a Fortran 90 compiler.  The vendor
didn't, thus a reasonable person would conclude that the compiler
in question will compile only those Fortran 90 programs that are
limited to the new features supported via extensions.

> Yes, he would.

Wrong again, Mike.

> But that conclusion would be wrong because the statement is wrong.

Incorrect, given that the statement is not wrong.  The statement is
merely misinterpreted by people like you, who don't understand the
language properly.  That's why you chose to delete my album of music
by Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss example from the other posting in
this thread.

>>>> You're wrong once again and are obviously trying very hard to save
>>>> face.

>>> I'm not wrong, Dave.

>> Yes you are, Mike, because IBM's Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 does implement
>> Java 1.2 functionality.

> Evidence, please.

Go to IBM's web site, Mike.

> What "Java 1.2 functionality" do you refer to?

The specifics are irrelevant, Mike.  Some functionality from Java 1.2
is implemented.

> Can I use weak references?

Ask IBM, Mike.  I wouldn't assume that the email they sent me contained a
complete listing of everything from Java 1.2 they incorporated into Java
1.1.8.

> No.

How would you know, Mike?

> Does it include the 1.2 collection classes?

Ask IBM, Mike.  I wouldn't assume that the email they sent me contained a
complete listing of everything from Java 1.2 they incorporated into Java
1.1.8.

> No.

How would you know, Mike?

> Can I use Graphics 2D?

Ask IBM, Mike.  I wouldn't assume that the email they sent me contained a
complete listing of everything from Java 1.2 they incorporated into Java
1.1.8.

> No.

How would you know, Mike?

> Gee, seems like it does a pretty poor job of implement "Java 1.2
> functionality".

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?  Are you claiming that the
functionality from Java 1.2 that IBM included in Java 1.1.8 was done
poorly?

>>> Ask a reasonable person if JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2 functionality.

>> I already did, Mike.

> You're lying again, of course.

Wrong again, of course.

>>> Ask a reasonable person if DOS implements OS/2 functionality.

>> Still can't get your chronology straight, can you, Mike?

> There's no mention of chronology in my statement.

Precisely.

> Explain how chronology affects your claim that JDK 1.1.8 implements
> JDK 1.2 functionality?

I already did, Mike.

> You can't, obviously.

Illogical, given that I already did.  Still having reading comprehension
problems, Mike?  Here, let me repost the material you deleted:

DT] There were some releases of DOS that postdate OS/2, and I wouldn't
DT] rule out the possibility that the DOS developers implemented something
DT] they saw in OS/2.  FAT, however, does not qualify.

>>> The answer will be no.

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> The basis of a reasonable person.

Who might that be, Mike?  You?  Sorry, you don't qualify.

>>> If the intent of the statement is that JDK 1.1.8 implements the
>>> features found in JDK 1.1.8, why mention JDK 1.2 at all?

>> The key word here is "if".  The intent is to note how IBM has
>> incorporated some Java 1.2 features in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.

> What, then, makes something a "Java 1.2" feature?

A feature in Java 1.2 that wasn't in Java 1.1, Mike.

> Which features are you referring to?

The features from Java 1.2 that IBM chose to implement in Java 1.1.8,
Mike.

>> That's why 1.2 gets mentioned at all.

> Note the two following sentences:
>
>  1. "JDK 1.1.8 implements some features found in JDK 1.2"
>  2. "JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2 functionality"
>
> Do these mean the same thing?

Yes.  Note the following two sentences:

   1.  On this album, the New York Philharmonic performs music by
       Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss.

   2.  On this album, the New York Philharmonic performs some music
       by Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss.

Do these mean the same thing?  If history repeats itself, you'll
simply delete the example, because you can't deal with an example
that shows why you're wrong.

> No, they do not.

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> Note the definition:
>
>  functionality
>
>  The capabilities or behaviours of a program,

Note the plurals.  That's what makes it possible to implement some
of the functionality.  If it were singular, then it would be an all
or nothing proposition.  Unfortunately for your argument, that's not
the case.

Why the sudden switch to British spellings?

>  part of a program or system, seen as the sum of its features.

Where did this "seen as the sum" come from, Mike?

>  Roughly, "the things it can do". Generally used in a comparitive
>  sense, e.g. "The latest update adds some useful functionality".

Ah ha!  Here the word is used in a sense that is not "seen as the sum".
Rather, it refers to the additions.  Your own example contradicts your
own definition.

Precious.

> Does JDK 1.1.8 implement "the sum of features" of JDK 1.2?

Irrelevant, given that neither Joseph nor I said anything about
"the sum of features", Mike.

> No, it does not.

Still irrelevant, Mike.  Try dealing with what Joseph actually wrote,
rather than what you've misinterpreted him to have written.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 00:56:21
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:03
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > >
> > > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > > Were you involved in any meetings with IBM over a new OS/2 client?
Brad
> > > > W. was.  Sorry, but that gives him some weight.  A lot more weight
than
> > > > your opinions, for sure.
> > > >
> > > Do you mean the IPMT meeting that, unbeknownst to Brad, was cancelled
> > > because of the hurricane?  Or the earlier meeting that Brad didn't know
> > > about?  Yeah, I can see that Brad was R-E-A-L close to the decision
> > > process.  The only thing Brad seems to know for sure is what IBM
> > > indicated to him with that clear message.  But the indications don't
> > > seem to have happened in an actual meeting with an actual statement.
> > >
> > > We are, of course, free to give Brad Wardell's statements and claims all
> > > of the weight to which we think they are entitled.  But please recognize
> > > that whatever weight you choose to give them is based on your faith in
> > > Brad Wardell and not on any actual FACTS.
> >
> > Likewise is true of those who have some irrational hatred or distrust of
> > his words.
>
> And also of those who are blind to the possibility of ulterior motives
> and actions.

And those who seek conspiracy under every rock and around every corner.

What would such motives be?  How could they benefit those who hold them?

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                    19-Oct-99 00:46:09
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:03
Subj: Re: IBM's Marketing Skills

From: [e-mail]

In <380b2303$5$obot$[e-mail]>, on 10/18/99
   at 09:13 AM, Bob Germer <[e-mail]> said:

> I read your posts with fascination and they never fail to inform. Thank
>> you for that. I do try to read them attentively but, in a busy day, I'm
>> sure to miss some things.

>> The concern in this newsgroup is for the fate of OS/2, not the fate of
>> IBM. Obviously they are linked but not reciprocally for, as you say, IBM
>> can survive the demise of OS/2. I found little in your post to build
>> confidence about the survival of the latter and the above lines about
>> nostalgia don't help in that regard.

>> Oh, I care about IBM alright - I'm a stockholder. But it's OS/2 I'm
>> worried about.

>You missed, or I failed to properly set forth, the thrust of my argument.

Thank you for the clarification. I thought indeed that you were going in
this direction but the emphasis on obsolete, no-longer available products
at the end of your post confused me. I have a couple of reactions and I'm
sorry I have to push them out in too much haste.

>IBM fully supports Warp for its large corporate customers and provides
>avenues, albeit no superhighways, for the SOHO user who sees his/her
>computer as a business tool first and an entertainment center secondarily
>if at all.

I'm not so sure of this binary opposition between 'business tool' and
'entertainment center', for a couple of reasons. I don't play games but I
am interested in some new technologies, and it's a pity when they're not
available in OS/2. I don't know if this is 'entertainment' but it may be
'business' for small developers who want to try to keep up or even for
academics and such who might use find teaching or research tools there. I
don't have specific instances in mind - well, I have trouble getting
RealAudio to work - but my point is that looking at the 'cutting edge' or
newer things isn't always frivolous entertainment.

I also am concerned with IBM's emphasis on the server since there are some
'business' tools of use on the PC. such as drivers for new storage media
which OS/2 will be at least laggard in. (It was nice to see that the Orb
was going to get drivers for the parallel-port version; don't know what's
come of that.)

>[...]As long as the overwhelming majority of ATM transactions
>are handled by Warp based machines and IBM remains in the banking
>hardware business, I believe we will see continued support for Warp.

Yes but see my worries above. I'm pleased about what I read in a recent
interview with Steven King about OS/2's profitability for IBM and its
plans for support <http://www.byte.com/feature/BYT19991014S0008>; a lot of
things there will be interesting and good for us to have.

>The problem with so many computer users is that they feel that they must
>have the latest and greatest hardware, software, etc. They have fallen
>into the marketing hype of MicroSoft as surely as automobile buyers have
>fallen into the hype of Ford, GM, Toyota, etc., etc., etc.. As long as my
>computer can do the things I need doing and can foresee doing for the
>next year, 2 years, etc., I feel no urgency to update.

I do agree wholeheartedly and I don't mean my remarks above to imply that
I think I have to have every newfangled geegaw. That doesn't mean it
doesn't pinch when there's something out there you really could use but
isn't supported in OS/2.

My prior post emphasized too much worries about OS/2's 'survivability'.
Indeed, a 2 year window of use seems like a very good future perspective,
given the way things change in this industry. I have no idea if I'll be
using OS/2 in two years - though I don't see why not -, it's a long time.
I think King speaks of a four-year horizon.

>The same is true of my operating system. Until it can no longer handle
>what I need to do, what reason have I, as a businessman, to go down a
>learning curve with a new OS, new software, etc.? Many of my clients are
>law firms. They are still using DOS and WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS and will
>continue to do so [...]

Heh, many of the secretaries were displeased when the College computer
people forced them onto Microsoft Word, they had grown to love their
versions of Wordperfect (usually 6.1 though).

It's pretty obvious that each of us has to consider her or his needs and
whether OS/2 satisfies them and at what cost. IBM will continue to
'support' OS/2 but not always in ways which will suit the needs of people
like myself, though I eschew the designation 'non-serious entertainment
center' consumer. I also earnestly hope to see OS/2 grow ways to run other
apps (Java, the EMX stuff, etc.) and I would like to see possibilities for
small developers to make a living off of it but that looks more difficult
at this point.

Really, thank you for your reflections!

F.

-----------------------------------------------------------
      Felmon John Davis
     [e-mail]    |  [e-mail]
     Union College /  Schenectady, NY
     - insert standard doxastic disclaimers -
     OS/2 - ma kauft koi katz em sack
-----------------------------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Logical Net (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                19-Oct-99 04:31:09
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:03
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: [e-mail] (Richard Garrett Molpus)

I was at Warpstock - as a volunteer. I've helped at a *lot* of SF/F
cons - (which is why I volunteered - there is ALWAYS a need for
Volunteers) and have developed an eye to "counting the house".

    At the last raffle session (6:30 PM approx), the room count
was at 125 - 150. I looked at the ticket roll after I made my
estimate, and saw that the tick spool was at xxx120 (my ticket was
xxx102).

Earlier major meetings (Keynote address, earlier raffle sessions, The
Con Party) had had close to 250. Since the Sunday Raffle was the last
official event, I was not surprised to see the reduced attendance
(which was a smaller reduction than what I've seen at Trek cons.)

As an example, on Saturday I stood security at the exhibition hall as
vendors did final setup and prep. I had to turn away 50+ people who
wanted to get in early - a (from experience) high percentage of the
attendee population.

All-in-all a well run, successful convention for the available
attendee population. I'm glad I went.


On 18 Oct 1999 23:39:02 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
wrote:

>[e-mail] writes:
>
>> Word is that there were more exhibitors than attendees at this year's
>> Warpstock rally.
>
>Whose word might that be?
>
>Perhaps you'd like to comment on the Southern California OS/2 event held
>last month?
>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Richard G. Molpus
No Profit to high, No quote to ridiculous.
Ask Me about my Anti-Microsoft bias!
Praise BOB! or send him $30.00 anyway.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           19-Oct-99 01:39:11
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:03
Subj: Re: IBM's Marketing Skills

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7ugqgn$bsj$[e-mail]>, on 10/18/99 at 09:02 PM,
   [e-mail] (Tim Smith) said:

> GE still lists all kinds of home applicances on their web site.  It sure
> looks like no one told them they sold the names and left the market. :-)

Yes, but go look at the documentation, warranty, registration, etc. for
those units. GE continues to "market" the items, but they don't produce
them.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 19-Oct-99 07:47:22
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:04
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7ugsgd$9r6$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>> But any resonable person would realize that you are wrong,
>
>>> I am not wrong when I note that a FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
>>> Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.
>
>> Yes, Dave, you are.
>
>No I'm not, Mike.  Even the compiler vendor states that the compiler
>implements Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.

Evidence, please.  Reproduce the exact quote.

>> If you claim that a particular FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
>> Fortran 90 functionality as an extension,
>
>The key word here, once again, is "if".  I claimed "extensions", Mike,
>not "extension".  That alone should tell you something.

It doesn't.  Whether the functionality is encapsulated in one extension
or multiple extensions is irrelevent.  One expects the functionality to
be there.  Yet parts of it are apparently missing.

>> would not a reasonable person conclude that the compiler in question
>> will compile programs written for Fortran 90?
>
>No, because if the compiler supported all of Fortran 90, then the
>vendor would obviously call it a Fortran 90 compiler.

Why so?  You claimed the functionality was available through extensions.
One thing, plus extensions, can be equal to another thing.  For example,
an RS model car, plus options, may have the functionality of an LS model
car.  However, the car is still an RS, not an LS.

>The vendor
>didn't, thus a reasonable person would conclude that the compiler
>in question will compile only those Fortran 90 programs that are
>limited to the new features supported via extensions.

And the claim was that the functionality was available through
extensions.  Yet, apparently, parts of the functionality are missing.
I guess "Fortran 90 functionality" isn't available after all.

>> Yes, he would.  But that conclusion would be wrong because the
>> statement is wrong.
>
>Incorrect, given that the statement is not wrong.  The statement is
>merely misinterpreted by people like you, who don't understand the
>language properly.

No, the statement is wrong.  If "Fortran 90 functionality" is promised,
then one expects functionality equivalent to Fortran 90.

>>>>> You're wrong once again and are obviously trying very hard to save
>>>>> face.
>
>>>> I'm not wrong, Dave.
>
>>> Yes you are, Mike, because IBM's Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 does implement
>>> Java 1.2 functionality.
>
>> Evidence, please.
>
>Go to IBM's web site, Mike.

That's not evidence, Dave, that's a directive.  I'll just note that
you fail to supply any evidence.

>> What "Java 1.2 functionality" do you refer to?
>
>The specifics are irrelevant, Mike.  Some functionality from Java 1.2
>is implemented.

Prove it, Dave, if you think you can.  I've asked you this before, and
you've failed to provide any proof.  This time will be no different.

>> Can I use weak references?
>
>Ask IBM, Mike.

I'm asking you, Dave; you made the claim, thus the burden of proof is
on you.  I see you falter under that burden, as usual.

>> Gee, seems like it does a pretty poor job of implement "Java 1.2
>> functionality".
>
>On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

The claim that much of the functionality specified in Java 1.2 is missing.

If I give you the plans for a house, and all you build is a single door,
that's a pretty poor job of implementing the plans.

>>>> Ask a reasonable person if DOS implements OS/2 functionality.
>
>>> Still can't get your chronology straight, can you, Mike?
>
>> There's no mention of chronology in my statement.  Explain how
>> chronology affects your claim that JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2
>> functionality?  You can't, obviously.
>
>Illogical, given that I already did.  Still having reading comprehension
>problems, Mike?  Here, let me repost the material you deleted:
>
>DT] There were some releases of DOS that postdate OS/2, and I wouldn't
>DT] rule out the possibility that the DOS developers implemented something
>DT] they saw in OS/2.  FAT, however, does not qualify.

There's nothing there about JDK 1.1.8 nor JDK 1.2.  Thus, no explanation
of your "chronology" complaint.

>>>> If the intent of the statement is that JDK 1.1.8 implements the
>>>> features found in JDK 1.1.8, why mention JDK 1.2 at all?
>
>>> The key word here is "if".  The intent is to note how IBM has
>>> incorporated some Java 1.2 features in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
>
>> What, then, makes something a "Java 1.2" feature?
>
>A feature in Java 1.2 that wasn't in Java 1.1, Mike.

There are many features in Java 1.2 that weren't in JDK 1.1.  However,
some of those features were introduced in JDK 1.1.1 -> JDK 1.1.7.
Do those qualify?

>> Which features are you referring to?
>
>The features from Java 1.2 that IBM chose to implement in Java 1.1.8,
>Mike.

Which features would those be?  You don't know.  You are, once again,
arguing from a position of arrogant ignorance.

>>> That's why 1.2 gets mentioned at all.
>
>> Note the two following sentences:
>>
>>  1. "JDK 1.1.8 implements some features found in JDK 1.2"
>>  2. "JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2 functionality"
>>
>> Do these mean the same thing?
>
>Yes.

Wrong.  If you promise "JDK 1.2 functionality", one expects functionality
equivalent to JDK 1.2.  Is that what IBM's JDK 1.1.8 delivers?  Not at all.

>Note the following two sentences:
>
>   1.  On this album, the New York Philharmonic performs music by
>       Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss.
>
>   2.  On this album, the New York Philharmonic performs some music
>       by Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss.
>
>Do these mean the same thing?

Does "performs music" equal "implements JDK 1.2 functionality"?  No, it
does not, thus your examle is irrelevent.

Dave, we're talking about technical product releases with defined
standards.  You do not understand that subject matter.  That's why
you insist on arguing about music and composers.

>> Note the definition:
>>
>>  functionality
>>
>>  The capabilities or behaviours of a program,
>
>Note the plurals.  That's what makes it possible to implement some
>of the functionality.

Yes, Dave, it does.  And when you implement some of the functionality,
then you say you implement some of the functionality.  Note the word
"some" which indicates incompleteness.

>>  part of a program or system, seen as the sum of its features.
>
>Where did this "seen as the sum" come from, Mike?

From the dictionary definition, Dave.

>>  Roughly, "the things it can do". Generally used in a comparitive
>>  sense, e.g. "The latest update adds some useful functionality".
>
>Ah ha!  Here the word is used in a sense that is not "seen as the sum".
>Rather, it refers to the additions.  Your own example contradicts your
>own definition.

Not at all.  Functionality is the behavior of a program.  You can break
it down into parts if you wish.  When you refer to "the save functionality",
you refer to the the features having to do with saving.  When you refer
to "Word 6.0 functionality", you refer to the features of Word 6.0.

When you refer to "JDK 1.2 functionality", you refer to the features of
JDK 1.2.

>> Does JDK 1.1.8 implement "the sum of features" of JDK 1.2?
>
>Irrelevant, given that neither Joseph nor I said anything about
>"the sum of features", Mike.

Instead, you referred to "JDK 1.2 functionality".  That's "the sum of
features of JDK 1.2."

>> No, it does not.
>
>Still irrelevant, Mike.  Try dealing with what Joseph actually wrote,
>rather than what you've misinterpreted him to have written.

I did, Dave.  "JDK 1.2 functionalty" is what both of you wrote.

If you claim IBM's JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2 functionality, a
reasonable person would conclude that it delivers functionality
equivalent to JDK 1.2.  Yet it does not.

No matter what you bring up about composers and Fortran compilers,
that's the bottom line -- JDK 1.1.8 does not deliver functionality
equivalent to JDK 1.2.

     - Mike


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 19-Oct-99 08:06:25
  To: All                                               19-Oct-99 23:36:04
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7ugqpg$9r6$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>> Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality", there is
>>>>> nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to suggest that all
>>>>> such functionality was implemented.
>
>>>> Except that there is.  If you claim to implement a standard, then it
>>>> is assumed that you implement the entire standard.
>
>>> The key word here is "if".  Nothing was said about a standard, Mike.
>
>> On the contrary, Java 1.2 was "said",
>
>That's a reference to a version number, Mike, not a reference to a
>standard.  Joseph never said that Java 1.1.8 implements the Java 1.2
>standard.

Both of you said that it implements Java 1.2 functionality, and the
standard defines that functionality.  If you claim to implement a
standard, then it is expected that you implement the entire standard.
If you claim to implement the functionality of another product, then
it is expected that you deliver functionality equivalent to that
other product.

Neither of these is true in this case.

>> If you have JVM which implements Java 1.2, it is expected to run run
>> Java 1.2 applications.
>
>The key word here, once again, is "if".  What Joseph said is "Java 1.2
>functionality", not "Java 1.2".

The ability to run Java 1.2 applications is a part of "Java 1.2
functionality".

>> IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does not implement Java 1.2;
>
>IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality, Mike.

No, it does not.  The functionality provided by IBM's JDK 1.1.8 is not
equivalent to Java 1.2.

>> if it did, IBM would call it a 1.2 JDK, not a 1.1.8 JDK.
>
>IBM is, in fact, calling it 1.1.8 with some 1.2 functionality.  Why do
>you have such a hard time with that fact, Mike?

I don't have a hard time with that fact, Dave; I understand the meaning
of the word "some".  Do you?

>Does it really bother you so much for the facts about Java for OS/2
>to be mentioned?

Not at all.  What I was correcting was the *misinformation* about Java for
OS/2 -- that is, the claim that it delivers the functionality of Java 1.2.
It does not.

It is obviously you who are bothered to see the facts about Java for
OS/2 -- IBM makes it clear that only *SOME* of the Java 1.2 functionality
is included, yet you insist on ommitting the word "some".  Why is that?

>>>> The Integer class is part of the Java 1.2 standard.  But you cannot claim
>>>> that you implement Java 1.2 functionality simply because you've
implemented
>>>> the Integer class.
>
>>> Sure you can, Mike
>
>> Well, you're still obviously hopeless.
>
>How ironic,

Not so.  Go publish a JDK that contains only the Integer class, then
claim that it implements "Java 1.2 functionality".  Then see everyone
laugh in your face, just like they're doing now.

>coming from someone whose argument is so hopeless that he
>needed to resort to the same old deletion tactic.  Here's what I really
>wrote:
>
>DT] Sure you can, Mike, just like the album that includes a few works by
>DT] Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss can claim to present the music of those
>DT] composers.
>DT]
>DT] Of course, you'd assume that the album includes the entire works by
>DT] those composers, based on your statement above.  That's your problem.
>
>Try dealing with my counterexamples, Mike, rather than just deleting them.

Your conterexamples are irrelevent; we're not talking about composers
or albums, nor the words "present" and "works".  You can't argue the
point at hand, so you want to argue a completely different point, which
you falsely claim is identical.

You just want to talk about a different subject, because you, as usual,
jumped into an argument about a subject which you are ignorant of.

The fact of the matter is that IBM claims that OS/2 is "the premiere
platform for Java development", yet IBM's OS/2 JDKs are slower than
their Windows JDKs, and even slower than their Linux JDKs.   JDK 1.2
was delivered, in shipping form, on Win32 and Solaris about a year ago;
despite your claims about "JDK 1.2 functionality", it is still not
available on OS/2.

You can argue about composers all you want, but it doesn't change
the facts.

     - Mike

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 22:21:19
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:07
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen attempts to logically disprove song lyrics as follows:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>> David H. McCoy wrote:
>
> >>>> http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/10/15/1012230.shtml
>
> >>> Let me be the first to issue the patented, "But what does this have to
> >>> do with OS/2?"
>
> >> Who patented that, Marty?
>
> > You're so vain.
>
> Non sequitur.  You didn't answer my question, Marty.
>
> > You probably think this thread is about you.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.  You still didn't answer my question.
>
> > You're so vain.
>
> Non sequitur.  You still didn't answer my question, Marty.
>
> > I bet you think this thread is about you.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.  You still didn't answer my question.
>
> > Don't you?  Don't you?
>
> Having redundancy problems, Marty?
>
> I thought I was in your kill file.  Yet another person who made the
> claim responds to me.  And people wonder why I respond to those who
> allegedly have me in their kill files.  The above is another example
> of why.

Every time I tried to tell you,
the words just came out wrong,
so I had to point out your illogic
in a song.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             19-Oct-99 22:54:03
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7uiqc7$rl$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> In article <7uh8qr$h3h$[e-mail]>,
>   [e-mail] (Mike Timbol) wrote:
> > In article <7ugqpg$9r6$[e-mail]>,
> > Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >Mike Timbol writes:
>
> -- snip --
>
> > >IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality, Mike.
> >
> > No, it does not.  The functionality provided by IBM's JDK 1.1.8 is
not
> > equivalent to Java 1.2.
>
> -- snip --
>
> Ahh, the wonders of the Ambiguities of English . . .
>
> That's one problem with debate -- one has to choose words very
> carefully.  To say that "X implements Y functionality" really doesn't
> mean much, unless it's qualified. Does X implement *all* of  Y's
> funtionality, or only *some* of it?  Unfortunately, the original quote
> can be correctly interpreted both ways, and arguing that one
> interpretation is "more correct" than the other is just as meaningless
> as the original quote itself.

This is essentially a correct analysis.

BTW, D. Tholen engaged in and lost an argument with me on this subject
about 5 years ago - his pants are down again on this very same subject
now with these JDK statements, unwittingly relying on the same
fallacies he committed before.

Anyway, the old thread contains a detailed syntactic account for this
particular alternation so you might be interested in reading it. It is
still archived on USENET; do a search on "costly mistakes" in this
newsgroup and it should come up (it may have been cross-posted to one
or more of the Windows advocacy NG's as well).

Lucien S.

> Specifically, if one looks at the available facts, it's reasonable
> to conclude that IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 does not implement *all* of
> 1.2's functionality, but only *some* of it (assuming that it
> implements *any* of it at all). If that wasn't the case (i.e., if it
> implemented *all* of 1.2's funtionality), it stands to reason that the
> JDK would have been *called* 1.2.
>
> OTOH, to flat out state that 1.1.8 *does not* implement 1.2
> functionality implies that it doesn't implement *any* of 1.2's
> funtionality, which is also incorrect (again, assuming that 1.1.8 does
> indeed implement any 1.2 funtionality at all).
>
> So, you're both wrong, and right. :)
>
> Curtis
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                19-Oct-99 20:08:19
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (tholenbot)

In article <7ug3ko$13t$[e-mail]>, Dave Tholen wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
>
> >>>> Impossible, given that deja.com does prove that I am correct.
>
> >>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> >> Yet again?  Have you forgotten the last time already?
>
> > What alleged "last time", Dave?
>
> Nothing alleged about it, Eric.

Incorrect.

> Gerben Bergman did a little investigating
> and confirmed that Wayne Strang won.  See
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Reading comprehension problems again, Dave?  Gerben's post shows that you
were the winner:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=421360318&fmt=text

> >>>> That's not the "actual ballot".
>
> >>> Incorrect.
>
> >> Feel free to demonstrate how it's allegedly incorrect, if you think
> >> you can.
>
> > Illogical,
>
> Nothing illogical about it, Eric.

On the contrary, you simply fail to understand why it is illogical.

> > given that the burden of proof is yours.
>
> It's already been proven.

Evidence, please.

> The burden to read the proof is yours, Eric.

Argument by assertion again, Dave?  How predictable.

> >>>> Incorrect.
>
> >>> Taking reading comprehension lessons from Eric Bennett again, Dave?
>
> >> Obviously not.
>
> > On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> On the basis of the lack of any evidence showing that any such lessons
> were taken from you.

Illogical.

> >> Taking identification lessons from Bob Dole, Eric?
>
> > Identification lessons are irrelevant.
>
> Then why did you refer to yourself above using "from Eric Bennett"
> rather than "from me"?

Don't you know, Dave?

> > I do not "approve" phrases.
> > -Dave Tholen
>
> I'm puzzled by your fascination with that statement, Eric.

What puzzles you is irrelevant.  What you can prove is relevant.

> Do you
> take something you've written, break it up into individual phrases,
> and "approve" each phrase before you make that writing available to
> a larger audience?

The tholenbot never approves phrases.

--
I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 20:38:05
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > David H. McCoy wrote:
>
> >> http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/10/15/1012230.shtml
>
> > Let me be the first to issue the patented, "But what does this have to
> > do with OS/2?"
>
> Who patented that, Marty?

You're so vain.  You probably think this thread is about you.  You're so
vain.  I bet you think this thread is about you.  Don't you?  Don't you?

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 19:40:00
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: A reminder, please listen for all our sakes

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

Remember (or try to), Microsoft wants to ship a perfected software package
FOR ONCE.  Can't you give them credit or must you urinate on everything they
do?

Yup, you have to pee all over the place because your little product, for
every reason there was, did not succeed and become the general purpose OS it
may or may not deserve to be.  Or are you peeing because somebody at
microsoft knows how the american system actually works and took advantage of
it?

My god, look at IBM's continual fuck-ups!  As I keep saying, in the October
1996 issue of OS/2 MAGAZINE, page 7, PERSPECTIVES column, John W Thompson
(the dipshit) babbled his reasons as to why OS/2 didn't get the second beta
it so desperately needed and why it was thrust into the market so quickly.

Why don't you explain that to me before ripping on windows?!

Even worse, why don't you look at IBM's complete computer history which
started in the early 1950s AND go into every minute detail involved in their
1980 piece of piddle "IBM PC" and the circumstances around it.  IBM is just
as evil as microsoft but you can't see it because you either weren't there
at the time and had a moral conscience or you haven't studied up on things
at all.  Now, I'm no historian but I've read enough and have seen enough PBS
specials and didn't even need to conclude anything since they already
spelled it out!

I am getting so fed up with you people.  (nor did I ever believe, until now,
that I would ever support microsoft on any issue of any sort - but you
mindless dickless killjoys have nothing better to do than piss and moan
because IBM is a fuck-up who has and who still uses the same marketing
tactics microsoft uses to get their product across.  AS/400 side alone, my
employer is now pissed at IBM because they are locked into an antiquated
imaging system using the M0:DCA format instead of something that's an
INDUSTRY STANDARD like TIFF!!!  And yet y'all think IBM is some sort of god.
No they are not.  They are the same piggy capitalistic selfish bastard
entity that microsoft or any other corporation is.  Period.)

Have a nice day.

Jerry McBride <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> I got this, this morning... And I said it once and I'll say it again...
> You gotta' love this microsoft shit...
>
> The word in quotes is my addition... You gotta' read the URL...
>
> ===========================================================
> THE INFOWORLD SCOOP                      NETWORKING EDITION
> ===========================================================
>
> Monday, October 18, 1999
>
> WINDOWS 2000 UP IN THE AIR
>
> Questions continue to swirl around Microsoft's monolithic
> Windows 2000 operating system, with speculation over
> the launch date becoming rampant as the company pulled
> yet another "key" feature from the operating system.
>
> In a keynote address at the Gartner IT Symposium in
> Orlando, Fla., last week, Microsoft President Steve
> Ballmer remained vague about the delivery of Windows
> 2000, saying only that it would ship sometime in the next
> several months.
>
> For the full story:
> http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?991015.hnwin2k.htm
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --
>
>
****************************************************************************
***
> *            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...
*
> *       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.151 for your next java project at:
*
> *
*
> *                      GET IT NOW! WHILE IT'S STILL FREE!
*
> *
*
> *                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx
*
>
****************************************************************************
***
>
> /----------------------------------------\
> | From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
> |         [e-mail]             |
> \----------------------------------------/
>
> --
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 19:45:02
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

We all know Microsoft has done some nasty stuff, but for any one of us (and
I used to) to say that all microsoft products are just plain bad is crazy!
Asinine!  Insane!  Unrealistic!  Nonsense!  Biased!  You get my drift.

It's also more fun when those who criticize Microsoft don't know what IBM
has done in its past or what it is doing now.   Just sauce for the goose...
if these OS/2 people knew or could see rationally how IBM itself has acted
over the decades (along with how they've been screwed thanks to not
supporting OS/2 aside from tons of placebos, oops fixpaks, which make people
think IBM is there yet really isn't!!!)  If they knew a fraction of all
that, they'd loathe IBM as much as I do, probably even more so.

David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/10/15/1012230.shtml
> --
> ---------------------------------------
> David H. McCoy
> dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> ---------------------------------------


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         20-Oct-99 01:31:19
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> David H. McCoy wrote:

>>>> http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/10/15/1012230.shtml

>>> Let me be the first to issue the patented, "But what does this have to
>>> do with OS/2?"

>> Who patented that, Marty?

> You're so vain.

Non sequitur.  You didn't answer my question, Marty.

> You probably think this thread is about you.

Incorrect, Marty.  You still didn't answer my question.

> You're so vain.

Non sequitur.  You still didn't answer my question, Marty.

> I bet you think this thread is about you.

Incorrect, Marty.  You still didn't answer my question.

> Don't you?  Don't you?

Having redundancy problems, Marty?

I thought I was in your kill file.  Yet another person who made the
claim responds to me.  And people wonder why I respond to those who
allegedly have me in their kill files.  The above is another example
of why.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         20-Oct-99 01:48:07
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

> To say that "X implements Y functionality" really doesn't mean much,
> unless it's qualified. Does X implement *all* of  Y's funtionality,
> or only *some* of it?

In this case, it's obviously only some, or else IBM wouldn't still be
calling it 1.1.8.

> Unfortunately, the original quote can be correctly interpreted both
> ways,

But not logically.

> and arguing that one interpretation is "more correct" than the other
> is just as meaningless as the original quote itself.

I disagree.  "Some" is the only logical interpretation.  If "all"
was intended, then IBM should logically call it 1.2.

> Specifically, if one looks at the available facts, it's reasonable
> to conclude that IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 does not implement *all* of
> 1.2's functionality, but only *some* of it

It's more than just reasonable.  It happens to be the truth.

> (assuming that it implements *any* of it at all).

You mean you don't know for sure?  Haven't you read my responses to
Timbol?

> If that wasn't the case (i.e., if it implemented *all* of 1.2's
> funtionality), it stands to reason that the JDK would have been
> *called* 1.2.

Precisely why it's more logical to interpret the statement to mean
"some", not "all".

> OTOH, to flat out state that 1.1.8 *does not* implement 1.2
> functionality implies that it doesn't implement *any* of 1.2's
> funtionality, which is also incorrect

Indeed.

> (again, assuming that 1.1.8 does indeed implement any 1.2 funtionality
> at all).

You mean you don't know for sure?  Haven't you read my responses to
Timbol?

> So, you're both wrong, and right. :)

Incorrect.  I know for a fact that 1.1.8 includes some of the 1.2
functionality.  Both Timbol and Lucien fail to comprehend the
illogic of calling something that implements all of 1.2 "1.1.8".
They are wrong.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 19:52:18
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Time for some humor re:Warpstock

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

First of all, a statement which actually makes sense:  IBM doesn't know what
to go do with itself.  THAT is why we all blame microsoft: IBM is such a
thickheaded retarded dipwad and because OS/2 is *owned* by IBM we can't ever
blame IBM for anything they do especially with OS/2.   Noooooooooooooooo, we
can't do that!  So let's bark up another tree...  oh look, there's a
gigantic blue tree which is glowing blue, yellow, red, and green.  No, it's
not an economy size box of 'lucky charms' it's Microsoft!  Yeah, let's rag
on them because they found the american dream (disgusting as it is).

Now, it's humor time...
In order to get more people to get to Warpstock, do this:

Combine it with a sci-fi event.  That way, retards looking like Klingons
(and probably try to sound like them, too) or wookies can stop by all the
OS/2 booths (which are also dressed up as companies who are not promoting a
dead product, IBM not excepted.)

But you're right, OS/2 isn't dead!  it's in a far worse state than death.
This state is called "Owned and copyrighted by IBM."

It's been said before by many.  Replace IBM with someone else and two things
will happen:  OS/2's quality will skyrocket and the motivation of the
company would find a way to sell and support it with applications of the
same quality as that for that microslothy systems stuff.

Once again, the ball is in IBM's court.  And, once again, IBM doesn't know
what to go do with itself.  THAT is why we all blame microsoft - IBM is such
a thickhead and because OS/2 is owned by IBM we can't ever blame IBM for
anything.   Noooooooooooooooo, we can't do that!  So let's bark up another
tree...

--

Please do me the honor and visit:

http://www.geocities.com/~timanov/ispy/index.html


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         20-Oct-99 01:59:18
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>>>>>> Impossible, given that deja.com does prove that I am correct.

>>>>> Prove it, if you think you can.

>>>> Yet again?  Have you forgotten the last time already?

>>> What alleged "last time", Dave?

>> Nothing alleged about it, Eric.

> Incorrect.

I see you failed to comprehend my evidence.  Still having reading
comprehension problems, Eric?

>> Gerben Bergman did a little investigating
>> and confirmed that Wayne Strang won.  See
>> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

> Reading comprehension problems again, Dave?

Obviously not.

> Gerben's post shows that you were the winner:

Gerben's post shows that Wayne Strang is the winner.  See the message
referenced above.

>>>>>> That's not the "actual ballot".

>>>>> Incorrect.

>>>> Feel free to demonstrate how it's allegedly incorrect, if you think
>>>> you can.

>>> Illogical,

>> Nothing illogical about it, Eric.

> On the contrary, you simply fail to understand why it is illogical.

Illogical, given that I explained why there is nothing illogical about
it, while you only make the claim with offering any explanation.

>>> given that the burden of proof is yours.

>> It's already been proven.

> Evidence, please.

See the referenced message above.

>> The burden to read the proof is yours, Eric.

> Argument by assertion again, Dave?

Where is the alleged assertion, Eric?

> How predictable.

How illogical to refer to a nonexistent assertion.

>>>>>> Incorrect.

>>>>> Taking reading comprehension lessons from Eric Bennett again, Dave?

>>>> Obviously not.

>>> On what basis do you make this claim?

>> On the basis of the lack of any evidence showing that any such lessons
>> were taken from you.

> Illogical.

Yet another example of a claim lacking explanation.

>>>> Taking identification lessons from Bob Dole, Eric?

>>> Identification lessons are irrelevant.

>> Then why did you refer to yourself above using "from Eric Bennett"
>> rather than "from me"?

> Don't you know, Dave?

I see you didn't answer my question.

>>> I do not "approve" phrases.
>>> -Dave Tholen

>> I'm puzzled by your fascination with that statement, Eric.

> What puzzles you is irrelevant.

Incorrect.

> What you can prove is relevant.

Non sequitur.

>> Do you take something you've written, break it up into individual
>> phrases, and "approve" each phrase before you make that writing
>> available to a larger audience?

> The tholenbot never approves phrases.

Then why don't you quote yourself at the end of your postings?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         20-Oct-99 01:53:00
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

> Curtis Bass wrote:

>> Ahh, the wonders of the Ambiguities of English . . .
>>
>> That's one problem with debate -- one has to choose words very
>> carefully.  To say that "X implements Y functionality" really doesn't
>> mean much, unless it's qualified. Does X implement *all* of  Y's
>> funtionality, or only *some* of it?  Unfortunately, the original quote
>> can be correctly interpreted both ways, and arguing that one
>> interpretation is "more correct" than the other is just as meaningless
>> as the original quote itself.

> This is essentially a correct analysis.

Incorrect.  See my response to Curtis for why.

> BTW, D. Tholen engaged in and lost an argument with me on this subject
> about 5 years ago

Incorrect again.  I did not lose any argument with you on that subject.
You failed to comprehend the definition of "prevent", which is why you
lost that argument.

> - his pants are down again on this very same subject

Incorrect again, as I've clearly demonstrated in my responses to you.

> now with these JDK statements, unwittingly relying on the same
> fallacies he committed before.

Incorrect again.  First of all, there were no fallacies on my part
before, and there is no word analogous to "prevent" in the present
situation.

> Anyway, the old thread contains a detailed syntactic account for this
> particular alternation

And no evidence of comprehension of the definition of "prevent", which
is why you lost that argument.

> so you might be interested in reading it.

Indeed.

> It is still archived on USENET; do a search on "costly mistakes" in this
> newsgroup and it should come up (it may have been cross-posted to one
> or more of the Windows advocacy NG's as well).

I also encourage him to look up the definition of "prevent" in the
dictionary, something that you apparently failed to do.

>> Specifically, if one looks at the available facts, it's reasonable
>> to conclude that IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 does not implement *all* of
>> 1.2's functionality, but only *some* of it (assuming that it
>> implements *any* of it at all). If that wasn't the case (i.e., if it
>> implemented *all* of 1.2's funtionality), it stands to reason that the
>> JDK would have been *called* 1.2.

Interesting that you chose not to respond to this particular item, which
restates what I've been saying.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 22:15:02
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: (1/3) Re: Time to move on

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >> Dos and Windows 9x have little or no security and have been heartily
embraced.
> >> OS/2 has no security, but according to some, it has a halfway corporation
> >> presence.
>
> >They are deployed for desktop software where security is unimportant.
> >Are you saying Linux could be gainfully employed on the business
> >desktop?
>
> I know of one telecom company that is switching from Win32 to Linux/Java.
The
> only reason I think that this is not wise is because the last I heard, Linux
> had a slow JVM. This may have changed. Regardless, my point(if I remember)
is
> that support is more important than security to quite a few companies.

Well, I forgot my point, so I'll drop it.

> >> >> Since OS/2 users are within the domain of computer uses, either will
suffice.
> >>
> >> >>A square is a type of rectangle, but do all rectangles have equal
length
> >> >>sides?  What applies to the subset does not necessarily apply to the
> >> >>superset.
> >>
> >> A droplet is not a river but both are still wet. Are do you feel that
there are
> >> some OS/2 users that ARE NOT computer users?
>
> >A square is not a rectangle, but both have 4 sides.  That doesn't change
> >the fact that a square is a specific kind of rectangle and an OS/2 user
> >is a specific kind of computer user.
>
> But that still means that an OS/2 users is a computer user. Do you know of
any
> OS/2 users who are NOT computer users?

But an OS/2 user is a <specific kind> of user!  What is true of an OS/2
user is not necessarily true of a computer user.  Furthermore (going
back a few quotes), if I'm in a minority of computer users, this doesn't
automatically make me in a minority of OS/2 users.

> >> Your choice. It is the right of every man to be wrong(and stubborn)
despite
> >> overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
>
> >That should cover your thoughts.  >;-)
>
> Except that I am right and you, my friend, are not. <g>

So I'm not your friend?  :-(

Doesn't make me any less right, however.  >:-)

> >> Of course, you also think an unsecure, support operating system cannot
> >> make corporate headway despite the existence of DOS and Win9x.
>
> >No, I think Linux cannot.
>
> Well, it's coming up in conversation quite a bit, but again, my point was
that
> support is the most important feature to most corporations.

As we've all seen from IBM, support goes a bit beyond telling you how to
get out of a jam or how to set yourself up properly.  Support is also
the guaranteed continued production of an item, and commitment from one
or more parties that the product will meet your needs in the future.
Such a guarantee absolutely cannot be made for Linux, no matter how well
"supported" it is.

> >> I suspect that your advice was ignored for reasons other than your
mother's
> >> "cluelessness".  Perhaps you noticed that you were using OS/2 decided
your
> >> advice was...questionable? :-)
>
> >Well she always hears how I leave my computer on all the time and don't
> >reboot.  That must have turned her off to the whole thing.
>
> Indeed. After all, one must reboot to install new hardware

Told ya.  ;-P

> and considering how difficult that is for OS/2, people usually run screaming

> into the night.

What are you talking about?  It's easy to reboot OS/2.  You can even
just hit CTRL-ALT-DEL if you like.  :-)

> >> Okay.  I wonder how many people anticipated the Internet or this IT job
market?
>
> >Anyone that had prior interest in such topics probably could have seen
> >it coming.
>
> I don't agree. It caught way too many people off-guard.

I saw it coming.  Unfortunately, I was too young to get rich off of it.
;-)

> >> >> No reboot required.
> >>
> >> >So if you had no OpenGL installed on your system and needed to install
> >> >it, you wouldn't have to reboot your system?  :-)
> >>
> >> Installs with the driver! :-)
>
> >Right, so in order to meet my precondition for having "no OpenGL
> >installed on your system" you'd have to start from the VGA driver, hence
> >you'd have to reboot to install it.
>
> Only if you consider rebooting to use another OS the same as rebooting to
> install new hardware. But let's do so. I would do this once, when the
hardware
> is installed. You would do so whenever the need for OpenGL arose.

If such a need existed, which it doesn't.  As I have stated before, if
there were such a need, I would have chosen a different tool.

> Not efficient, but very OS/2-like.

I disagree, it's not very object-oriented or well-engineered.

> >> >Right.  And if I gave a rat's ass about hardware OpenGL, I'd view this
> >> >as very annoying.  However I don't.
> >>
> >> Fine. This was just one example to show an overall problem.
>
> >It's only a problem for those who want to use such things, and they
> >should have had the sense not to use the wrong tool for their job in the
> >first place.
>
> Or made the mistake of believing that OS/2 could keep up with the changing
> times. I agree with you though, if one were to believe such a thing about
OS/2,
> perhaps good sense has left the building. :-)

Hey... measuring potential is always risky in the technologies arena.
That's why meeting your immediate needs is always the best (and
cheapest) option.

> >> >Not really.  Using OS/2 is not analogous to loosing your freedom.  It's
> >> >like using an old trusted powerful truck for a towing job instead of
> >> >using a shiny new sport ute with a CD player.  Sure it's nice to be able
> >> >to play CDs, but if you've got to tow a load up a hill, the CD player
> >> >isn't all that useful.
> >>
> >> Indeed. But the truck that can tow that load and play that CD is even
better,
> >> isn't it?
>
> >Sure, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.  There are always
> >tradeoffs.
>
> But you can. That's my point.

I can't.  That's my point.

> >> >To me they are gingerbread.
> >>
> >> Again, it is your right to go into a car dealership and tell someone that
the
> >> AC is optional no matter how many times they tell you that it is
standard. It
> >> doesn't make you right. Just difficult.
>
> >I'm not saying it's optional or gingerbread for everyone.  I'm saying it
> >is for me.
>
> Not even for you. I say this because it is a standard feature of the card.

It's gingerbread in the sense that I pay it no mind in my purchasing
decision.  What I want to buy rarely lines up with what is for sale in
nearly all aspects of life.  Computers are no different.

> >> But yet, they are features that CAN be used. What you consider necessary
isn't
> >> relevent in this context. What is relevent is that you are forced to pay
for
> >> features you CANNOT use.
>
> >I can use them if I want to reboot.  What I consider necessary is very
> >relevant to the context of my statement:  If I want it for the higher
> >clock speed and nothing else, everything else is extraneous.
>
> You can use them if you reboot. You are right. However, since you run your
> machine for so long, do you not find this annoying?

No, because I never have such a need, I never reboot for such a reason,
and hence never get annoyed by it.

> >> >> >> These are basic features of the card. Basic. And Scitech
> >> >> >> doesn't support them.
> >> >>
> >> >> >It will.
> >> >>
> >> >> First, you have no evidence of this, so that statement is both useless
and
> >> >> worthless.
> >>
> >> >Umm... yes I do.  Deja News.
> >>
> >> Well, let's see it.
>
> >Here's a good one, straight from the horse's mouth, posted directly to
> >this newsgroup, no less:
>
>
>http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=451059199&CONTEXT=939953176.408551516&hitnum=
3
>
> Well, they mentioned MGL, but the part about TNT or 3dfx support is not
> present. Also, from http://www.scitechsoft.com/dp_feat.html, the feature
list
> of MGL.

Now check SDD beta 8's list.  How's that crow taste?
http://www.scitechsoft.com/sdd_hrdw_os2.html

0 for 2 on that comment David.

> Now, I don't know about you, but I see NO OS/2 ANYTHING. Do you still wish
to
> use MGL as your example of OS/2 support?

Sure do.  I don't see anything that says "not supported on OS/2."  Since
the product is cross-platform and is in fact the same product, the
natural assumption is that the mentioned features are present on all
supported platforms unless otherwise stated as an exception.  I saw no
such exceptions.

> >> >> Second, you contradict earlier statements. If 3d features are basic,
> >> >> but considered "gingerbread" and [un]important to many OS/2 users, why
on Earth
> >> >> would Scitech waste time implemented features that are consider
useless by so
> >> >> many?
> >>
> >> >Because their drivers aren't just OS/2 drivers.  They have the same
> >> >codebase for <all> of their drivers for <all> platforms.
> >>
> >> Without looking at a line of their code I can guarantee you that if they
> >> support those advance features, they will not be the same codebase.
>
> >The interfaces to the operating systems are obviously OS specific, but
> >the driving code is in fact, the same.  All OS's have to be able to
> >change video hardware registers and manipulate video memory.  How that
> >is done is specific to the OS.  However, telling a card to draw a
> >polygon or change into a given graphics mode can be done from a common
> >code base.  This is what is known as "abstraction."  The low-level
> >interface to OS/2 is almost completely ironed out without the need to
> >touch the higher level code.
>
> I know what abstraction is. I also know that all the abstraction in the
world
> will not give their code the ability to support things that in native to
> Windows. There is a sizable difference between supportind 2d and 3d
functions,
> let alone features like dynamic resolutions changes.

Right.  That's where Scitech's Nucleus drivers come in and their own
implementation of OpenGL which will either be hardware or software
accelerated, depending on your card's abilities.

> >> That is not possible.
>
> >Incorrect.  It has already been done.
>
> It is you who is incorrect.

Incorrect.

> The only thing I see are tools that are weighted heavily towards Windows.
You
> have yet to provide any proof that their drivers support all the advanced
> features of these cards equally across all platforms.  I've give you two
cases
> where GLDirect and now MGL where their are features listed that OS/2 doesn't

> appear to support despite your contentions of parity.
>
> Can you counter these examples?

Already have.

> >> Either they will bring all their other drivers down to
> >> the lowest common denominator, all they will be forced to have different
code
> >> for the myriad of advanced features that OS/2 doesn't support.
>
> >All video cards have similar access through whichever bus they use.  As
> >long as the OS can write to port and registers and memory addresses
> >(which any OS can) full support is possible for anything.
>
> And yet in every single case, OS/2 drivers do less than their Windows
> counterparts. How do you explain this?

Umm... SDD is in beta.  OS/2's driver architecture existed long before
many of these video card features did.  The device driver interface
itself is not incapable of addressing these devices however (otherwise,
it couldn't <operate> the devices!).  All devices are accessed via
memory addresses and machine ports.  It's as simple as that.  As such,
it is possible for any software to interface to any hardware in any
operating system.

> >> >> >> I find it difficult to be impressed with their software
> >> >> >> doesn't support the basic features of these new cards.
> >> >>
> >> >> >They're making great strides, but it will take time.  They also
> >> >> >mentioned plans for universal sound drivers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Great strides don't matter. Plans don't matter. We don't deal in
vaporware
> >> >> remember? Only what we can use here and now. Here and now, such
support doesn't
> >> >> exist and universal sound drivers don't exist.
> >>
> >> >So if future developments don't matter, why try to "future-proof" your
> >> >system?
> >>
> >> Because in the hear and now, I may want to use something in the future
that I
> >> don't use today. It can already exist and not be installed on my machine.
>
> >"Great strides don't matter. Plans don't matter. We don't deal in
> >vaporware remember?"
>
> You quote me without understanding what my words mean.
> Don't do that.
>
> There is a bevy of software and hardware that exists TODAY that I may wish
to
> use in the future.  My comment that you so erroneously quoted deals with so-
> called future develpment. You mentioned great strides when talking about
> Scitech. Those strides do matter because the need is here today. You think
that
> some will say, "Wow! In two years, Scitech will have TNT support, so I'll
> wait." Nope, won't happen. "Here and now."

Need salt with that crow?  How about a drink?  ROTFL!

> But someone can say, I'll buy a computer and use and OS that has
applications
> TODAY that can do "X", but I'll buy such software in a couple of months when
I
> have the money.
>
> Get the difference?

Not sure I follow.

> >> >> No good. The Voodoo has been unchanged for almost 3 years,
> >>
> >> >And hasn't released their specs to Scitech in this time either.
> >>
> >> Then Scitech is pretty useless unless you wish to use two year old cards
or the
> >> S4.
>
> >Many OS/2 users fall into a category such that Scitech is in fact,
> >useful.  So many, in fact, that IBM licensed SDD for OS/2.
>
> I never said that OS/2 didn't excel at support old technology.

Well, it doesn't fully support Win32 yet, so that is a major hole in its
old technology support.  But it is a problem that is being addressed.

> >> >> the TnT for more than a year. And STILL no support.
> >>
> >> >I think some forms of the TnT are supported by something in OS/2.  I
> >> >don't know because I don't own the card.
> >>
> >> You would be refering to Nvidia's Gradd drivers. These are the same ones
that
> >> force OS/2 users to run at 640x480 and 60mhz.
>
> >So other alternatives can be sought that don't have this limitation.
>
> There are none, and that is the problem. If you want such a card, and are
using
> OS/2, you are out of luck.

Not anymore.

> >> >> What proof do you have that they are even working on such support?
> >>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 22:15:02
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: (2/3) Re: Time to move on

> >> >It's in their own best interests to do so.  People have also made
> >> >requests on news.scitechsoft.com and gotten positive responses about
> >> >future planned drivers.
> >>
> >> How do you figure? With hoards of people like yourself(no offense) who
don't
> >> plan on using any new cards, how is it in their best interest to support
them?
>
> >It is their product which they have invested countless man-hours in.
> >They are simply protecting their investment.
>
> How is spending money to develop features no [one?] wants, according to you,
> protecting their investments? You will have to explain that one.

Well, their actions are speaking far louder than my words ever could.
If it weren't in their interests, then why would they be doing it?

> >> >> >> Most people don't care if a 5
> >> >> >> year old Tseng card is supported.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Most people that don't have such cards, sure.  Many people do have 1
or
> >> >> >2 year old cards which are supported, however.
> >> >>
> >> >> And many people have 1 to 2 year old cards that are not.
> >>
> >> >Such as?
> >>
> >> Maybe the millions of people who've purchased new machines less than one
year
> >> ago.
>
> >How would they wind up with 1 or 2 year old cards, specifically ones
> >which are not supported by OS/2 or SDD?
>
> 3dfx, TnT, Matrox are cards that fall in that 1 to 2 year slot that are not
> listed in Scitech's list.

My my... are you getting full yet?  I think you've had enough.

> >> >From the MGL source code tree:
> >> >[deleted]
> >>
> >> And what exactly does that have to do with the fact that SciTech doesn't
have
> >> an OS/2 version of GLDirect dispite your proclaimations of once and
future OS/2
> >> support?
>
> >GLDirect is a Win32 specific interface.  OpenGL is a multiplatform
> >interface which I have shown it does support and implement.
>
> GLDirect is a product that is used to give OpenGL support to cards that lack
> such support.

-- in windoze

> I never said that OS/2 didn't support OpenGL. I know better. What
> I did say is that Scitech has a product with no OS/2 equivalent.

Yes it does.  It has been incorporated into MGL and made available to
all platforms, including Linux, and now QNX as well.

> This product has been around for some time, yet they haven't seen fit to
> develop something similar for OS/2. You speak of Scitech's commitment to
OS/2.
> I question it based on their existing products which have no OS/2 versions.

You haven't researched such products well enough.

> >> >Read Warpcast and tell me that nothing has happened on the OS/2
> >> >development front.  Every 3 days or so, there a new version of
> >> >such-and-such being released, ported, or updated.  That's my barometer.
> >>
> >> I've read Warpcast. Now, we've gone from EDM/2 making a comeback to
irrelevent.
> >> Interesting. And your statement still doesn't address what I said about
OS/2
> >> development, namely that it is falling off.
>
> >How does Warpcast not refute your claim that OS/2 development is falling
> >off?
>
> Because the products that are coming out do not match the number or
complexity
> of products released in the past.  OS/2 used to have Embellish, Colorworks,
and
> TrueSpectra, for example. Where are they now?
> Or Describe? Clearlook? Skyscraper? Watcom? Intercom? Heck, check out
previous
> issues of OS/2 e-Zine and see how much is still around.

I was not taking the trend in the long run.  We all know OS/2 has been
hurt some time ago.  I'm talking recent trends here.  Where it is now
compared to where it was last year.

> >> > >> Makes for a bleak programming experience.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Well, it takes a certain "frontiersman" feel to it.  ;-)
> >> >>
> >> >> I suppose. I guess that I would rather make good software that people
enjoy
> >> >> using, than showing my stones in masochistic programming
displays.<grin>
> >>
> >> >You can do both in OS/2.
> >>
> >> You HAVE to in OS/2. And all the while, programming advancements will
pass you
> >> by.
>
> >Coding for OS/2 is not any more difficult than coding for win32 for most
> >tasks.
>
> Certainly, for most simple tasks, but try complex tasks.

Why would I waste my time on simple tasks?  I stand by my assertion.

> >> >> >It has had a long dead period where people were using it, but no big
> >> >> >contributions occurred.  That is no longer the case however.  Whether
or
> >> >> >not the initial damage done was enough to finish it off remains to be
> >> >> >seen, but it has had a late rally of sorts.
> >> >>
> >> >> The thing came out *monthly* and I read it *monthly*. What long dead
periods?
> >>
> >> >I'm referring to the OS/2 scene in general.
> >>
> >> Well, what rally?
>
> >Again I defer to Warpcast.
>
> Indeed, which is why I ask "What rally"? I see more stuff going out than
coming
> in?

Then you're not reading Warpcast.

> For example, what has Warpcast said will occur to cover the loss Innoval
> and Stardock?

They just report news presented to them, they don't offer commentary.

> >> I'm not disputing that. It just seems that we don't know what it means.
>
> >This doesn't seem like a large amount of interest for such a narrow
> >subject to you?
>
> Depends on how we want to read the numbers. I'm going to stay away from this
> one, so I don't risk offending you. This is, after all, your baby.

So be it.

> > BTW, can OS/2 use DirectCD?
>
> >That's like asking, can WinNT use SOM?  How about DIVE or DART?  It's
> >specific to the given platform.
>
> It would be more like asking if OS/2 or NT supported OpenGL, I think. It's
> practically a standard for many of the CDRs that I've seen.

What kind of standard only exists for one platform?  I've got a standard
haircut and my clothes conform to the normal specs of a Martin Amodeo.
Does your David McCoy support my Martin Amodeo specs?

> >> Well, my mistake for one. That "486 than can" should be "486 that
CANNOT".
> >> Also, my point is that people in this group seem to feel that using OS/2
proves
> >> they are knowledgable and using Windows proves someone else is not. My
point is
> >> that smart people choose fast machines and Windows and deny OS/2.
>
> >Smart people also choose fast machines and OS/2.  Smart people also
> >choose slow machines and OS/2.  Not so sure if smart people choose slow
> >machines and winxx... ;-)
>
> Depends. Win9x on a 486 was suprisingly fast. I was shocked, but pleased, it
> gave my in-law a good machine.

Win95 on my old 486 was aweful.  With absolutely nothing installed on
the system it dragged quite badly.  The sucker had 48MB of RAM too.  I
popped Warp 4 on there and turned it into a useful test platform.

> >> >Personally I'd prefer not to take a speed hit for the sake of
> >> >undoubtedly paltry encryption.  Also, I imagine it would make file
> >> >recovery quite a bit more difficult.
> >>
> >> First, I've got a fast machine, so a small speed hit is irrelevent.
>
> >I'm not so tolerant of inefficiency.
>
> How so? You are the guy who would reboot just to use a single program. That
is
> far less efficient than any speed hit that you cannot see.

No, I wouldn't reboot.  I would choose a better tool that fits my
needs.  We've covered this.

[#2 snipped]

> >> Third, since you don't know that the encryption is paltry, why make such
a
> >> comment? Why not instead, make one that you can back up?
>
> >Because I've seen first-hand how paltry their front-door security is.  I
> >had a PIII crack a 24 character long administrator password in a lab at
> >school as part of an experiment.  It did so with a commonly available
> >program using brute-force techniques (no dictionaries were employed),
> >and common standard user-level access.  It came up with the password in
> >under 4 hours.  That's pretty paltry IMHO.
>
> The only thing that means is that your admin picked a bad password.

Didn't seem particularly bad.  I'd post it here, but he'd probably get
upset.  ;-)

It was 24 characters long and was cracked by brute force.  How does one
pick a password (a 24 character password) that is particularly easy for
brute force cracking algorithms?  I'd like to know.

> Also, was this machine using the 128 bit password protection?

No idea.  It was running SP4 possibly with a few patches applied.

> Regardless, it takes some stones to berate Windows NT, when OS/2 has no
> passwords(or security for that matter)of which to speak.

Nor does the OS/2 client claim to.  That's the difference.

> It took you 4 hours to get the admin password for NT. Under OS/2, in four
hours,
> I would have had your data, emailed the president, erased your machine, took
a
> nap, read a book, and still returned home in time for corn flakes.
>
> Twice.

So go ahead.  My machine is online 24 hours a day.  My IP addy is
24.95.144.19.  Go to town.

Hmm... maybe I should back up my system first...

Whatever you do, please leave I:\GCCDEV alone.  :-)

> >> >Do they need it or want it?  Last time I looked, my gas company, etc.
> >> >still accepted physical checks.
> >>
> >> You seem to feel that people can't make decisions.
>
> >Incorrect.  You seem to feel that alternatives are inferior.
>
> Incorrect. I feel that alternatives that do less are inferior.

I do to.  Like I said, my checks still work in the same capacity as any
electronic methods would.

> >> All of my static payments go out electronically with no intervention on
my
> >> part. This saves time and effort and makes tracking payments easier. Time
> >> is money. Some companies even give you a discount for electronic
payments.
> >> Again, however, you show that OS/2 user characteristic of condemning what
> >> you don't have and "attacking" your fellows that do want such a feature.
>
> >Where is my condemnation or attack?  I asked if it was needed or
> >desired?  It is not needed, since there are alternatives available.  It
> >is desired by some.
>
> You keep saying that without walking a mile in their mochasins. How do you
know
> what a person needs?

Sorry, but I can't imagine a situation where such a thing would be a
need, where no other alternatives are available.  And I've got a pretty
wild imagination...

> >> >> Indeed. The Windows ones now allow NT to assign drive letters and
brings NT up
> >> >> to the level of 95/98 support. On the other hand, the last time OS/2
drivers
> >> >> came out was last July and they still lack the features I mentioned,
not to
> >> >> mention the new ones I just listed.
> >>
> >> >Zip disks in OS/2 can be formatted HPFS and can have protection bits
> >> >associated with the filesystem.  Drive letters can be reserved in OS/2
> >> >to move the Zip drive wherever you want it.
> >>
> >> First, HPFS Zip drive support on the PP version is iffy at best.
>
> >In what way(s)?
>
> In that it doesn't always work.

Um... ok.  Since neither of us have experience with any recent versions
of this software this statement and further discussion about it is
useless.

[second snipped again... must be a deep-seeded personal bias against
2's... hmm...]

> >> Third, under OS/2, the zip drive takes the next available, lowest
available
> >> drive letter. What this means is that the zip drive will change if you
change
> >> partitions. Under Windows, I made my CDROM Z: and my ZipDrive Y. No
matter
> >> what, they don't change.
> >>
> >> You cannot do this under OS/2.
>
> >I don't swap around partitions too often, so I'm not sensitized to these
> >issues.
>
> I don't either, but when it happened, it was a pain.

You can reserve drive letters in OS/2 to make them line up correctly as
an alternative.

> >My only opinion of drive handling and MS operating systems is
> >one that leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth, since DOS, NT, and
> >Win9x actually have 3 <completely different> concepts of how my drive
> >letters should be mapped.  What is C: in DOS is D: in NT.  What is C: in
> >95 is E: in DOS and F: in NT.  And so forth.  I don't know how I managed
> >to do such a thing, but I was less than impressed with the consistency.
> >This also made installation extremely difficult using a DOS-based
> >install.
>
> Explain. In the case of 9x and NTThe seem to work the same to me.

If I knew why it was doing it, I'd have fixed the problem.  Each OS saw
my partitions a different way.  I think part of the problem was having
my first partition on my first drive HPFS.  This made it <really>
interesting to install NT.

> >> >Then the alternative is to get a faster performing SCSI scanner.
> >>
> >> Not an alternative to people who want cheaper PP and don't have SCSI
cards.
> >> You, the "take my hand-me-down 486" want people do drop $100 on a SCSI
card,
> >> $250 on a SCSI scanner instead of spending $70 on a PP scanner?
>
> >Right tool for the right job.  Whatever that means to whomever.
>
> Right tool for the right job should mean take whatever you can get.

I take it you meant should[n't].

> It should mean that you have many options and can choose the best one
> for you.

Right.  The best option often has a financial aspect to it as well.

> >> >What kind of version do you want, PM, command line, or X11?  Take your
> >> >pick.  I prefer the command line one myself.
> >>
> >> I suspect that someone making animated gifs wouldn't want to do so on the
> >> command-line.
>
> >Then PM or X11?  I found it was quite easy to batch-process the GIFs
> >using the command line version for my application.
>
> What is the PM one? I think that asking someone to install the entire X11
> subsystem is ludacrous.

MainActor can produce animated GIFs.

> >> >Wouldn't know.  I don't pay too much attention to things I don't care
> >> >about.  I remember hearing something mentioned.
> >>
> >> Of course. Let me help. The answer would be no.
>
> >There are commercial CD rippers available for OS/2 which are fairly
> >full-featured.  Neither of us is qualified to compared the features of
> >both products since neither of us has used both products.  This seems to
> >be part of your, "if it exists for win32, then any other equivalent apps
> >on other platforms must be inferior" attitude.
>
> No, I am saying that there are NO CD RIPPERS FOR OS/2 LIKE REALJUKEBOX OR
> MUSICMATCH. NONE. NADA. NOTHING.
> NOTHING.
>
> Okay?

Nope.  You haven't tried/seen/used the lastest OS/2 CD rippers.  Neither
have I.  Neither of us can make a statement about what features one has
over the other.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 22:15:02
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: (3/3) Re: Time to move on

> >> >There are simple methods that can be employed to detect and insure
> >> >against memory leaks.  Memory overwrites are taken care of quite well
> >> >with GPFs.
> >>
> >> Simple methods sometimes provide simple results.
>
> >Simple results are often correct results.
>
> And are just as often incorrect.

Not in this case.

> >> Purify is an Unix and Windows standard, but I understand how OS/2 forces
> >> one to make do.
>
> >Yes, working in OS/2 does tend to make one write better code.  Must be
> >an osmosis effect from working with a well structured, well designed
> >system.
>
> Working with OS/2 would certainly tend to make one take longer to write
better
> code than it would take to write better code under Windows. Must be from the
> lack of current development applications.

Never stopped me before.  I can't stand all that visual bull-milarkee.

> I guess that's why Windows has the desktop and Unix the servers.

You forgot:  ...and why OS/2 has the banks.

> >> >> >> OpenGL?
> >> >>
> >> >> >What about it?
> >> >>
> >> >> Hardware support.
> >>
> >> >On the way.  Software support is already there.
> >>
> >> "On the way". That would be NO.
>
> >That would be a "NO" for now and a "YES" for later.
>
> That would be a "NO" for now and a "MAYBE" for later since nothing exists
> today.

Don't worry, Scitech will give you some time to digest your previous
crow before forcing you to eat more on this issue.

> >> >> >> Sorry, but it is definitely the inability of the platform.
> >> >>
> >> >> >>Hey... it's not for everyone.  I never said it was.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then whom, by george, is it for?
> >>
> >> >People who aren't name David McCoy, among others.
> >>
> >> Indeed, people who want the widest array of software and hardware
possible.
>
> >And the point being?
>
> If you want the widest array of software and hardware possible, stay away
from
> OS/2.

And if you want to meet some specific needs, OS/2 may be right for you.

> >> >> Today. Even its Java support is behind.
> >>
> >> >Which features are OS/2 users forced to live without in their Java
> >> >implementation?  My current version of Java is implemented well enough
> >> >to support the Java versions of ICQ, AIM, and Corel Office.  What am I
> >> >giving up by not having the latest version?
> >>
> >> Corel Office? Right. A dog that was dropped. You are probably the only
man in
> >> America using Corel Office. I suspect that you use it to say you can,
instead
> >> of for real work.
>
> >It impressed me.  It was the first real Java <application> (not applet)
> >I've ever seen in action.  I much prefer using native SmartSuite, but I
> >think it adequately illustrates the robustness and possibilities of Java
> >apps.  Specifically apps that run on the currently supported version of
> >Java for OS/2.
>
> How exactly does a product that was so bad that it was dropped, just like e-
> suite for that matter, "illustrates the robustness and possibilities of Java
> apps"?

Whether it was dropped or not doesn't make it a "less complex" or "bad"
application.  Also, AIM for Java is full-featured.  ICQ for Java has
everything but the "random chat" feature.

> >> As for the features, new Java developing is moving towards Java2.
>
> >You mean it's not there yet?  Why do I care where it is moving?
>
> You don't, but Java developers do. It's their job and if it involves Java 2,
> OS/2 isn't an option.

It's their job to produce applications that others can use.  If that
involves moving to Java 2, they will.  If it involves maintaining their
current codebase which is still supported on newer platforms, they'll do
that.

> >> If you want to be a Java developer who is behind practically every other
> >> OS and thus be non-competitive while making inferior Java products, by
all
> >> means, stick to OS/2.
>
> >Or if you want to have write once, run anywhere applications, you
> >conform to what is standard, thoroughly tested, and available anywhere.
>
> If that were the case, we would still be programming in C. You see, people
hate
> being help behind by stragglers.

Funny you should mention that.  "We" are still programming in C.  And
making a damn fine living at it too.

> >I think the apps I pointed out show the current OS/2 version of Java to
> >be more than capable of doing complex, useful tasks.
>
> You pointed out apps that were dropped from the face of the Earth and in all
> cases, all the apps are slower and not feature equivalent to their native
> counterparts.

Incorrect.

> But what they lack their, they make up for in being harder to install.

So it's difficult to unzip a file?  You know, us OS/2 guys can unzip
files by double-clicking them too.

- Marty

[whew!]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 22:23:29
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson wrote:
>
> THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!
>
> We all know Microsoft has done some nasty stuff, but for any one of us (and
> I used to) to say that all microsoft products are just plain bad is crazy!
> Asinine!  Insane!  Unrealistic!  Nonsense!  Biased!  You get my drift.
>
> It's also more fun when those who criticize Microsoft don't know what IBM
> has done in its past or what it is doing now.   Just sauce for the goose...
> if these OS/2 people knew or could see rationally how IBM itself has acted
> over the decades (along with how they've been screwed thanks to not
> supporting OS/2 aside from tons of placebos, oops fixpaks, which make people
> think IBM is there yet really isn't!!!)  If they knew a fraction of all
> that, they'd loathe IBM as much as I do, probably even more so.

Some of us are capable of using a good software product without blindly
worshipping its maker.  Likewise without loathing its maker.  You take
business affairs too personally IMHO.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         20-Oct-99 02:39:16
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Dave Tholen attempts to logically disprove song lyrics as follows:

Illogical, given that no song lyrics were involved in my previous
posting, Marty.

>>>>> David H. McCoy wrote:

>>>>>> http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/10/15/1012230.shtml

>>>>> Let me be the first to issue the patented, "But what does this have to
>>>>> do with OS/2?"

>>>> Who patented that, Marty?

>>> You're so vain.

>> Non sequitur.  You didn't answer my question, Marty.

>>> You probably think this thread is about you.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  You still didn't answer my question.

>>> You're so vain.

>> Non sequitur.  You still didn't answer my question, Marty.

>>> I bet you think this thread is about you.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  You still didn't answer my question.

>>> Don't you?  Don't you?

>> Having redundancy problems, Marty?

>> I thought I was in your kill file.  Yet another person who made the
>> claim responds to me.  And people wonder why I respond to those who
>> allegedly have me in their kill files.  The above is another example
>> of why.

> Every time I tried to tell you,
> the words just came out wrong,
> so I had to point out your illogic
> in a song.

I see you still didn't answer my question, nor did you explain why
you're suddenly able to read my postings.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         20-Oct-99 02:58:19
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Roberto Alsina writes:

>>> I think I will indulge in some tholenisms, just for the bad old
>>> times' sake.

>> I wish you would, like indulging in some logic, but you keep missing
>> the mark by a wide margin.

> I'm afraid tholenism and logic are incompatible,

Incorrect.

> so I had to choose.

You're erroneously presupposing that they are incompatiable.

>>>>> You were not nominated because of the fact you present, but
>>>>> because of another.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what motivated
>>>> you to submit a nomination.

>>> The fact for which you were nominated is not the fact that motivated
>>> me to nominate you.

>> You just contradicted yourself.  You just said, in effect, that your
>> motivation was not what motivated you.

> No, you just didn't understand me.

Incorrect.  I understood what you wrote.  If you didn't mean what you
wrote, that's your problem, not mine.

> I don't nominate every kook I meet.

Obviously, given that you didn't nominate yourself.

> I nominate kooks I meet and dislike.

Is that why you didn't nominate yourself, because you like yourself?

> You were nominated because of the fact that you are (IMHO) a kook

Too bad you can't prove it.

> and that I don't like you.

I'm not surprised, given how badly my evidence made you look.

> Your nomination, however says "this guy is a kook because he argues
> with eliza" (not an actual quote).

Which is a lie.

> The things mentioned in your nomination are just a subset of the
> personal reasons I had to nominate you,

You didn't have to do anything, Roberto.

> and therefore, not the same.

Not the same as what, Roberto?

>>> Your comprehension problems continue.

>> How ironic, considering the statement that you just wrote.

> And that you completely failed to understand, obviously.

Incorrect.  I understood what you wrote.  If you didn't mean what you
wrote, that's your problem, not mine.

>>>> I'm simply noting the irony that you didn't nominate yourself,
>>>> after making such a boneheaded mistake and continuing to insist
>>>> that you were right, even after the source of the error was clearly
>>>> identified.

>>> Being wrong is not kooky.

>> Insisting that you're right, even long after the source of the error
>> was identified, is.

> Nope.

On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?  What took you so long
to finally admit your error?  Why did you continue to insist that you
were right long after it was glaringly obvious that you were wrong?

>>> Insisting on mistakes is not kooky.

>> Insisting that you're right, even long after the source of the error
>> was identified, is.

> I said "A" and you said, "No, not A".

My evidence consisted of far more than the equivalent of "No, not A",
Roberto.

> Great argument strategy.

Too bad that's not the argument strategy that I used.  I actually
pointed to the dates spanned by the articles you referenced.

>>> Kooky reasons

>> What's allegedly "kooky" about the reasons, Roberto?

> I'm afraid if you can't see it,

I can't see what isn't there to be seen, Roberto.

> you can't understand the explanation.

You're erroneously presupposing that there is a logical explanation.

>>> for a kook.

>> Such as yourself.

> I actually meant you, (that was obvious for every careful reader).

Too bad you can't prove it.

>>> I am not a kook.

>> Then why did you accuse me of posting an average of 134 articles
>> every day?

> Because I was wrong.

What took you so long to finally admit your error?  Why did you continue
to insist that you were right long after it was glaringly obvious that
you were wrong?

>>> Or at least I do not believe I am a kook.

>> Your beliefs are irrelevant, Roberto.  Your actions are relevant.

> Amazing.

What's so amazing about it, Roberto?

>>> Why should I nominate a person I do not believe to be a kook?

>> Your beliefs are irrelevant, Roberto.  Your actions are relevant.

> So, you are saying I should nominate a person I don't believe to
> be a kook?

Still having reading comprehension problems, Roberto?  I'm saying
that your actions are relevant.

> You realize how stupid that sounds?

I realize how stupid the statement you just made sounds, given that
your interpretation of what I said isn't even close to what I
actually said.

>> Your actions include a rather blatant error and a failure to
>> admit the error for a long time after the source of the error was
>> identified.

> I'm afraid you have no clue about what a kook is.

Incorrect.

>>> That only makes sense in the mind of a kook: you.

>> I'm not the one who blew the math by an order of magnitude and
>> continued to insist that the calculation was correct, even long
>> after the source of the error was identified!  That was you who
>> did those things.

> Yes,

And can't even explain why.

> but I was not the one that argued with Eliza,

Neither did I.

> and lated denied it, Dave.

Why shouldn't I deny something that didn't happen, Roberto?

>>>>> which everyone who has read your drivel already knows you are.

>>>> The fact that you erroneously accused me of posting an average of
>>>> 134 articles every day is not "drivel".

>>> Of course it is not.

>> Glad you agree.

>>> You didn't post that.

>> On the contrary, that fact is what I posted in response to Jason S.'s
>> recent posting.

> You mean when you say "you erroneously accused me of posting an average
> of 134 articles every day" that "you" is Dave Tholen?

Wrong again, Roberto.  Still having reading comprehension problems?

>>>>> The award would have been just a cherry on the cake, a "official"
>>>>> acknowledgement of your nuttiness.

>>>> I'm not the one who botched the math, Roberto.  You did.

>>> But you are the kook, Dave.

>> Incorrect.

> You are not an impartial judge in the subject.

How ironic, coming from the person who insisted that he isn't a kook.

> You are trying to pass opinion as fact.

How ironic, coming from the person who insisted that he isn't a kook.

> Typical kook.

You just demonstrated why you should have nominated yourself.

> Funny that you claim that my saying "Dave is a kook" is "truth by
> proclamation" but your "I am not a kook" is not.

Nothing funny about it.  I've referred to actual actions on your
part.  You have not.

>>>>> Fear not, you're still a kook in my heart.

>>>> What you have in your heart is irrelevant to me.

>>> But not to me,

>> Then start your own newsgroup and post articles to which you can
>> respond.

> If we apply the same standard to you, the world would be a better place
> quickly.

Illogical, given that USENET doesn't extend to the entire world
population.

>>> kooky.

>> Trying the old "truth by proclamation" approach, eh Roberto?

> You did the same thing in this very article at least three times, Dave.

Incorrect, Roberto.  I have evidence.  You do not.

> You have a serious double standard problem.

Incorrect, Roberto.  I have evidence.  You do not.

>>> Anyway, that was not the only time you argued with a computer
>>> program.

>> I've never argued with a computer program.

Note:  no response.

>>> Do you authorize me to show here the other one?

>> There is no "other one".

> Then authorize me to show the exchange you had with my email bouncer.

I had no argument with your email bouncer, Roberto.

>> I respond to postings made by people.
>> Some of those people post responses using personal attacks; some
>> post responses using deletion tactics to avoid dealing with certain
>> issues; some post responses generated by computer programs; I deal
>> with all those responses.

> A posting generated by a computer program without human intervention
> is hardly a posting made by "people", Dave.

The Eliza responses involved human intervention, Roberto, a fact that
you still don't realize.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               19-Oct-99 23:13:06
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen sung the following out of key, shattering his fragile ego:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > Dave Tholen attempts to logically disprove song lyrics as follows:
>
> Illogical, given that no song lyrics were involved in my previous
> posting, Marty.

Wrong on two counts:
1]  You quoted my song lyrics
2]  You logically tried to disprove them

Wasting away again in OS/2 Advocacy...
Searching for my lost Usenet poll.
Some people claim that I'm a kook and pretty lame,
and I know
it's my own damn fault.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         20-Oct-99 04:11:13
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: (1/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Roberto Alsina writes:

>>> I am part of the people.

>> Irrelevant, given that nothing was said about "part of the people" by
>> me.

> The day only what you say is relevant, is the day I kill myself.

Non sequitur, and not even grammatical.  You should have either admitted
to the irrelevance, or demonstrated the alleged relevance.

>>> Now, if I am part of the people, let me show you why what you said
>>> makes no sense:

>> Irrelevant, given that nothing was said about "part of the people" by
>> me.

> I am part of the peopl, wether you say it or not.

You're also a part of the male sex, which is something else I hadn't said
previously.  Doesn't make it relevant.

> Therefore, "Roberto is part of the people" is a useful hypothesis,
> wether you said it or not.

How is something irrelevant "a useful hypothesis"?

>>> My claim:
>>> -----
>>> Well, Dave, [Your KOTM nomination] should show you that you are not
>>> universally seen as the beacon of pure reason and thought you
>>> apparently think you are.

>> I see you're inserting bracketed material to change the chronology of
>> what occurred.

> Nope.

Incorrect.

> You are attributing intention without basis,

On the contrary, I have a basis for attributing intention, and I clearly
explained that basis.

> you are passing opinion [your opinion of my intention] as fact.

Incorrect.  I'm explaining the chronology of what occurred.

>> Originally, you used "that", and the immediately
>> preceding material to which you were responding involved your
>> erroneous accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day.

> I know wat I was talking about better than you , Dave.

Doesn't matter if you can't properly express your knowledge in writing,
Roberto.

> I was talking about your KOTM nomination,

Then you were non sequitur, Roberto.

> which was the subject of the thread before you threw your non-sequitur.

The subject of the paragraph to which you responded was your erroneous
accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day, Roberto.  I
wasn't the one who was non sequitur.  That was you.

> I simply ignored your part.

Obviously not.

>>> -----
>>> Let's break that into pieces:

>> Gee, some people like to complain about sentences being broken into
>> pieces.  Where were you when they did so?

> There are many ways to break.

You didn't answer my question.

> I like the way I broke my statement.

Irrelevant.  You still didn't answer my question.

>>> [a] I say you apparently think you are a beacon of pure reason and
>>> thought.

>> On what basis do you say what I appear to think, Roberto?

> It appears to me, Dave.

What is the basis for that appearance, Roberto?

> That should be obvious.

What appears to you is not obvious, Roberto.  Perhaps you have a
history of seeing things that don't really exist.

>>> [b] I say that since I don't see you as one, you are not universally
>>> seen as one.

>> And what are your reasons for not seeing me that way, Roberto?

> Personal experience.

What are these alleged experiences, Roberto?

>> Because
>> I noted a bit of history involving an embarrassing error of yours?

> Not specifically.

That's the observation of mine to which you responded, Roberto.

>> "Well, Roberto, that should show you that you are not universally seen
>> as the non-kook you apparently think you are."

> If you see me as a kook, then yes, I am not universally seen as a
> non-kook. Hardly a challenging statement, just like mine.

But I have more substance to point at than you do.

>>> Since [a] is not a statement of fact but of my personal opinion, you
>>> can not deny it.

>> Irrelevant, given that I did not deny it.

> I am not saying you denied it, I am saying you can't deny it.

On the contrary, I am quite capable of denying it.  That doesn't mean
I exercised that capability.

>> I didn't confirm it either.

> I didn't say you confirmed it, I said you can't deny it.

On the contrary, I am quite capable of denying it.  That doesn't mean
I exercised that capability.

>> I simply noted that your statement was illogical as a response to what
>> I had written.

> Pot, kettle, black.

On what basis do you say that, Roberto?

>>> You can however claim my opinion is wrong,

>> What I can do is irrelevant.

> Says who?

Me.

> I am trying to make an argument here.

You're not succeeding, Roberto.  Try using some logic.

>> What I actually did is relevant.  Why don't you deal with that, Roberto?

> I deal with whatever I want to deal with, Dave.

Including irrelevant things.  Is that how you intend to make a case, by
arguing about items that are irrelevant?

>>> and that you are not a beacon of pure reason and thought (BOPRAT for
>>> short).

>> Apparently you think there is no ground between those two extremes.
>> One can be logical while also using emotion to express, for example,
>> music.

> You can universally be seen as a BOPRAT or you can not be.

You're not addressing the point I made.

> There is no middle ground for that.

You're still not addressing the point I made.

> It's binary logic.

Not if you address the point I made.

> You can, however, be seen as a BOPRAT by a majority, or by a minority,
> or by your friends and family, or by little green men in mars, but
> "universally" is a yes or no.

I see you can't argue with the point I made, so you just bully your way
ahead.

>>> If you are not a BOPRAT, then you are accepting [b],
>>> since you are part of the universe,

>> So are you, Roberto.

> Indeed. Thanks for the reminder.

Did you really need a reminder, Roberto?

>>> and my overall premise is correct.

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?

> On the lengthy explanation I just gave,

Which I rebutted.

> against which your only argument was that some of the middle steps should be
> removed because they are "irrelevant".

That's a sufficient argument, Roberto.

>>> But you didn't do that.

>> I didn't *not* do that either, Roberto.

> I am not saying that you "didn't *not* do that either" Dave.

Then what is the relevance of your remark, Roberto?

>> There was neither acceptance nor non-acceptance on my part.

> I just presented the logical consequence of what would have happened
> if you did,

But I didn't do either, therefore your logical consequence is irrelevant.

> and specifically (remember the "can"?) marked it as such.

Mark all the irrelevance you want, Roberto.  It won't help you make a
compelling argument.

>>> You said
>>> -----
>>> Illogical, given that the above historical account doesn't do
>>> anything to contradict any assumption about what people see.
>>> -----

>> I'm well aware of what I said, Roberto.

> Good for you.

Why repeat it?

>>> If I am part of the people,

>> Nothing was said about "part of the people" by me, Roberto.

> Dave, you need a refreshment class in classical logic.

On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?  Noting that I didn't
say something has nothing to do with logic.  It has to do with an
accurate portrayal of history.

>>> "people" as a whole can not see you in a way different than my own.

>> Irrelevant, given that I never said anything about people as a whole,
>> Roberto.

> You denied my statement, which was precisely about that.

I countered your original statement, which was made in response to my
earlier statement about your erroneous 134 articles a day claim,
Roberto.

>>> Part of the people may, of course, but not "people",

>> Illogical, given that others are "people", and you do not speak for
>> them, Roberto.

> When you use a noun, you are by default referring to the entire
> object described by it.

Incorrect.  For example, I can say that "the team is playing poorly",
but some members of the team haven't played at all, therefore I am
not referring to those who haven't played.

> If "people is A" then all of people is A.
> If "part of people is not A" then "not people is A".

I suggest you contemplate the example I just gave, Roberto.

>>> which presumes a universal agreement by all parts of the
>>> people, of which I am one.

>> That's an illogical presumption, Roberto.

> That's ordinary english.

I was referring to your presumption, Roberto, not whether the English
you used is ordinary or not.  Still having reading comprehension
problems?

>>> Since the historical account shows that I don't see you as a BOPRAT,
>>> it contradicts directly an assumption that "people" see you as a
>>> BOPRAT.

>> Illogical, given that you don't speak for others, Roberto.

> But I speak for part of the collective of people (my part).

Then you shouldn't be using the plural, Roberto.

> Therefore, the universal opinion of the collective can't be
> opposite to my own.

You're presupposing the existence of a universal opinion, Roberto.

> I am not saying that the opinion of the collective is my own either.

Then why did you use the plural, Roberto?

>>> That's why I said that nominating you for KOTM should
>>> have shown you that "people" doesn't see you as a BOPRAT,

>> You didn't say that, Roberto.

> Yes I did.

Incorrect.  You didn't say anything about a nomination.  You used the
word "that" in a response to my recollection of your erroneous
accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day.  Logically,
the "that" refers to my response.

>> Rather, you used the word "that" in a
>> response to the immediately preceding material in which I noted your
>> erroneous accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day.  Your
>> statement didn't include any reference to a nomination.

> Your response was referring to the nomination.

My response was referring to your erroneous accusation involving an
average of 134 articles a day.

> I know what I wrote.

Doesn't matter if you can't properly express your knowledge in writing,
Roberto.

> This is a striking match to your Eliza thing.

Illogical, given that there is no such match.

> You see, you claim here to know better than I what I was writing.

On the contrary, I claim to know what you wrote.  You wrote "that" in
a response to my recollection of your erroneous accusation involving
an average of 134 articles a day.  Logically, the "that" refers to my
response.

> But on the Eliza thing you claim that I can't know better than you
> what you were writing.

You can't know more than what I wrote, Roberto.  I'm being perfectly
consistent.

> What argument do you prefer to win, Dave?

The argument I've made, not the argument you erroneously think I'm
making.

>>> and thus, you should not have that assumption about how people see
>>> you.

>> On what basis do you claim that I do have that assumption, Roberto?

> I didn't claim you have that assumption.

Then why did you write the above, Roberto?

> I claim you should not have it.

More irrelevance from Roberto.

> If you don't have it, then that's ok with me.

And of what relevance is it, Roberto?

>>> Therefore, the historical account does something to contradict the
>>> specific assumption about people seing you as a BOPRAT,

>> On the contrary, my recollection of your erroneous accusation does
>> nothing to contradict the specific assumption, given that no
>> reasoning is involved.  Instead, recollection is involved.

> Since it's now obvious that you were identifying wrongly what I was
> referring to with "that",

I'm not wrong at all, Roberto.  Logically, your "that" refers to the
paragraph which it followed.

> your whole argument is flawed.

Incorrect.  My argument is fine.  Yours is based on the claim that you
meant something different from what you wrote.

> You simply didn't read the same thing I wrote.

On the contrary, I read exactly what you wrote.  You're now trying to
change the meaning of what you wrote by claiming that the "that"
referred to something other than what it followed.

>>>>>>> BTW: you were nominated for being stupid enough to argue with
>>>>>>> Eliza.

>>>>>> Incorrect.  I wasn't stupid enough to argue with Eliza.  I was
>>>>>> responding to a real person who was inserting responses generated
>>>>>> by an Eliza program.  I realized that.  Others realized that I
>>>>>> realized that.  You did not.  How ironic that you should mention
>>>>>> being "stupid enough".  Exactly how do you explain your math
>>>>>> error and the long delay in admitting to it?

>>>>> I need not explain anything to you.

>>>> Then explain it to the readers.

>>> I need not explain anything to the readers either.

>> Then don't blame them for whatever conclusions they might reach about
>> you, given your unwillingness to explain your actions.

> I don't blame them. I never did.

They just might conclude something you don't like.

>>>>> That you are still pissed about it 2 years after the fact shows
>>>>> you are indeed a grudgy old fellow, and that you have indeed not
>>>>> grown out of it.

>>>> Same old Alsina.  Even after I explained to you that Jason S.
>>>> brought you up, not me,

>>> I never said you brought me up.

>> Then why are you concluding that I'm "still pissed", given that I'm
>> not the one who brought you up?

> I say you are still pissed based on what you wrote, Dave.

On what basis do you say that, Roberto?  If I recall that Clyde Tombaugh
discovered Pluto in 1930, are you going to erroneously conclude that I'm
still "pissed" about that discovery?

>>> Stop saying it,

>> I'll say whatever is necessary to make my case, Roberto.

> Including lies and half truths?

Irrelevant, given that no lies and half truths are involved on my part,
Roberto.

> Nice to see you come out of the closet.

Illogical, given that there is no closet involved on my part, Roberto.

>>>> here you are, still trying to put the onus on me.

>>> For the things you did brought up? Yes.

>> But I didn't bring you up, therefore there is no onus to put on me.
>> So why are you trying to do so?

> I don't say you brought me up.

But you are trying to put the onus on me.

> You brought up something else.

A historical fact, Roberto.

> I put on you the onus for it.

Illogical, given that a recollection of a historical fact is no basis
for concluding that someone is still "pissed".  See above for an example.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that my response does have a connection to what
>>>> I'm replied to.

>>> I can't parse that.

>> That's your problem, Roberto.

> I'd say it's your writing.

How ironic, coming from someone who wrote:

RA] The day only what you say is relevant, is the day I kill myself.

>>>> The fact that you're here, responding to me, raises

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         20-Oct-99 04:11:13
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: (2/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

>>>> interesting questions about your own motivations.  Just how did you
>>>> manage to stumble across a reference to you in this newsgroup?

>>> I notice all references to me in USENET.

>> Really?  Do you read every single newsgroup to find references to you?

> There are this newfangled things called computers. They are good at
> repetitive tasks, like pattern matching in massive amounts of text.

Why would you even bother, Roberto?

>> That's pretty bizarre behavior.

> Since that's not a behaviour I practice,

You practice a behavior that involves finding every reference to you
in all newsgroups.

> I don't care if you find it bizarre.

You should.  Exactly what is your motivation for finding every reference
to you in every newsgroup?

>>>>>>> PS: they weren't 134 a day,

>>>>>> Then why did you claim there were,

>>>>> Because I was wrong, Dave, just as I admitted years ago.

>>>> Not right away.

>>> Never said I did.

>> And you never said (logically) why it took you so long to admit it.

> I say what I want to say.

And avoid saying that which you can't logically explain.

>>>>>>> but they sure felt like it.

>>>>>> That wasn't your argument at the time.  You insisted on actual
>>>>>> numbers back then, not feelings.

>>>>> It is my argument of today.

>>>> Ah, your argument du jour.

> Small insert: it is "my argument d'aujourd'hui" not "du jour".

That's not what I wrote, Roberto.

>>> Do you feel that writing in french makes you look more correct?

>> Irrelevant, given that I am not writing in French.

> "du jour" is french.

I see you're ignoring the other 99+ percent.  Illogical.

>>>> Interesting that your "feeling" has a precision of 134.

>>> Not necessarily.

>> Non sequitur.  I'm noting something interesting.  See below for why I
>> find it interesting.  Necessity has nothing to do with it.

> I am saying that my feeling is not necessarily precise.

Then why did you use three digits of precision, Roberto?

> Your "interesting" bit is simply not necessarily correct.

Illogical, given that my "interesting" bit is not a matter of "correct"
or "incorrect".  Rather, it's a matter of interest.

>>>> Others tend to use "dozens", or "umpteen", or
>>>> some other non-specific term when referring to such feelings.

>>> I don't think I would have felt different with anything from, say,
>>> 100 up to 150.

>> Then why choose 134 rather than "a hundred"?

> Why not?

Because it's wrong, Roberto.

>>>> You were specific down to the single posting, and used flawed
>>>> mathematics, not feelings, to try and substantiate it.

>>> You are confusing 1997 and 1999.

>> Balderdash, Roberto.

>>> As you said, in 1997 I was not talking about feelings.

>> So, the explanation you did use was a lie.  Both explanations can't be
>> true.

> You are confusing facts and feelings.

Incorrect.  I'm comparing your argument then with your argument now.
Both can't be true.

> The truth of feelings has no bearing on the truth of facts.

Irrelevant, given that I'm comparing your two arguments, then and now.
Both can't be true.

>>> I am doing it now,

>> All that time, and you couldn't come up with a better explanation.

Note:  no response.

>>> and I have not substantiated it in any way,

>> How could you?  Can you substantiate your feelings?

> I didn't say I can.

I didn't say that you did.  I asked if you could.

> I said I didn't do it.

And I noted why.

> I never do things I can't do.

Irrelevant.

> It's all perfectly logic.

Incorrect.  The basis for your erroneous accusation is not perfectly
logical.

>>> much less with flawed mathematics.

>> Then why did you try that approach the first time, Roberto?

> I was not substantiating feelings.

Non sequitur.

> That was 1997.

Which was when you took a total number of postings and divided by a
flawed date range.  Note:  no reference to any feelings at that time.

You also continued to insist that your calculation was correct, even
after the error had been identified.  Note:  still no reference to any
feelings at that time.

> Feelings came into this in 1999.

Irrelevant, given that you made your accusation before 1999.  What
matters is your motivation then, not now.  Motivation must precede
action, not follow it.

> Look at the calendar.

I'm looking at your illogic.

>>>> You dug yourself into a hole back then, and I see you're doing it
>>>> again, in a feeble attempt to save face.

>>> At least I have a face to save, Dave.

>> Too bad you're failing at the save attempt.

> Too bad you are faceless.

On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim, Roberto?

>>>>>>> PPS: preemptive Tholen argument response: they felt like that to
>>>>>>> me,

>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that you didn't refer to feelings back then,
>>>>>> but instead actual numbers.

>>>>> In case you haven't noticed, the date of this thread is 1999.

>>>> I have noticed.  Of what relevence is it?  You made your error back
>>>> then.

>>> And that was not on this thread.

>> On the contrary, my recollection of your error is "on" this thread.

> In which they were irrelevant,

Incorrect.  "They" are quite relevant, because no reasonable person has
come forward to make such a nomination.  My recollection demonstrates
that you are not a reasonable person.

> thus easily ignored.

By whom?  Yourself?  I can certainly see why you would want to ignore
something that makes you look so bad.

>>>>> What are you, some sort of librarian of ancient anger?

>>>> What makes you ask that?

>>> Curiosity.

>> More like illogic.

> No, it's curiosity.

No, it's illogic.

> Will you answer the question?

Why should I answer an illogical question, Roberto?

>>>> What are you, someone who seeks out any
>>>> reference to you in any newsgroup?

>>> Someone who has software to do that for him, actually.

>> But why?

> I explain that right below, Dave.

No you don't, Roberto.

> You should read the whole post before replying (and remember it).

You're erroneously presupposing that I did not.

>>>> Exactly what drew your attention
>>>> to this newsgroup after so long a silence?

>>> A reference to my name.

>> That reference was made by Jason S.  Why didn't you respond to him,
>> Roberto?

> I didn't reply because I didn't believe it demanded an answer.

My recollection also didn't demand an answer, Roberto.

> I don't reply to all references to my name.

Why did you reply to my reference, Roberto?

>>> I do it to keep track of arguments I am involved in.

>> Are you involved in arguments all over USENET, Roberto?

> In more groups than I read.

That's not "all over USENET", Roberto.

> Often I would reply in a thread about a project I am involved in,
> on a newsgroup I don't read.

Why would a thread about a project you're involved in utilize your
name specifically, Roberto?

> Then I keep track of replies to my post by references to my name.

That doesn't explain what triggered your post in the first place.
If you don't read the newsgroup, then how did you find out about
a reference to a project you're involved in?

> I also look for references to my projects on all of USENET.

Why didn't you say that in the first place, Roberto?

>>> When I said "that's subjective, personal opinion" I was not talking
>>> about the numbers.

>> Incorrect:
>>
>> RA] PPS: preemptive Tholen argument response: they felt like that to
>> RA] me, that's subjective, personal opinion,
>>
>> The subject is clearly "they", which is a reference to the average
>> number of articles I posted each day.

> "they" is a reference to the articles themselves, not to their number,
> Dave.

"They" is a reference to the size of the collection of articles, Roberto.
That size can be described with a number.  If "they" is not a reference
to a number, then why did you use a number to described that alleged
feeling, Roberto?

> This seems to be the root of all your miscomprehension.

There is no miscomprehension on my part, Roberto.  There is plenty of
illogic on your part, including your claim about "they" above.

>>> I was talking about what I said in a recent post.

>> Incorrect.  You were talking about the erroneous 134 articles a day,
>> which you're now trying to pass off as just a "feeling".

> Who are you to say what I "talk" about?

Someone who reads what you've written, Roberto.

>>>>>>> so save it for the winter.

>>>>>> I'll deal with you whenever you choose to respond, Roberto.

>>>>> I'll deal with you whenever I have no need to be useful to
>>>>> society.

>>>> Exactly how does changing your argument (your argument du jour)
>>>> benefit society, Roberto?

>>> In no way.

>> Then why do it, Roberto?

> Why not?

Because it makes you look like a fool, Roberto.

> You only do things for the benefit of society?

Irrelevant, Roberto.  The issue is the motivation for you changing
your argument.

>>> That's why I only do it when I am not needing to be useful.

>> But when you need to lie to try and save face.

> Not necessarily.

In this case you did.

>>> Reading comprehension problems, Dave?

>> Not at all, Roberto.

> Your response to that question is as inevitable and thoughtless as
> the drooling of Pavlov's dogs.

Illogical, Roberto.  I'm not surprised.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         20-Oct-99 04:14:13
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Dave Tholen sung the following out of key, shattering his fragile ego:

Illogical, given that no singing was involved, Marty.

>>> Dave Tholen attempts to logically disprove song lyrics as follows:

>> Illogical, given that no song lyrics were involved in my previous
>> posting, Marty.

> Wrong on two counts:
> 1]  You quoted my song lyrics

Incorrect, as there were no song lyrics in what was referred to above as
"my previous posting" (which is now two postings ago).

> 2]  You logically tried to disprove them

Also incorrect.  I simply noted that your use of them is illogical.
That is not an attempt to disprove them.

> Wasting away again in OS/2 Advocacy...
> Searching for my lost Usenet poll.
> Some people claim that I'm a kook and pretty lame,
> and I know
> it's my own damn fault.

I see you still didn't explain why you're suddenly reading that which
is supposedly being filtered out by your killfile.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 04:43:25
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: [e-mail]

In article <7nZO3.11882$[e-mail]>,
  "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Seems to happen as soon as some linvocate hits his frustration level
> with being exposed as a liar one too many times.

Surely, you're not implying that all Linux Advocates are liars.

> Can't say as I've seen that happen to a NT advocate...

Maybe not specifically to NT advocates, but certainly to anti-Linux
zealots:

http://bx6.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=452693491&CONTEXT=940393989.813760533&h
itnum=2

(You will need to cut and paste this lengthy url into your Location
box).

> Chad Mulligan <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:7ugskt$kfm$[e-mail]...
> > Godwin's Principle.
> >
> > Drestin Black wrote in message ...
> > >Say, isn't there some "law" that claims that after a while someone
> > >will mention Hitler or the nazi's?
> > >
> > <snip>

Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          20-Oct-99 04:59:06
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>BTW, it's interesting (and humorous) to note that Tholen's new argument
>here is based on the same fallacious reasoning he unknowingly employed
>in the "costly mistakes" thread.

>Further proof that he never followed along....

Tholen is *not* intelligent enough to understand the things that are
being discussed in the newsgroup. That has been demonstrated quite
conclusively in my digest of his inane nonsense. He lacks even minimal
common sense, as can be noted from the absurdity of his posts

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      20-Oct-99 04:57:28
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta: Attendance

From: [e-mail]

In article
<[e-mail]>,
  "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This is the era of the "SuperClient".

Speaking of which, I missed your SuperClient presentation on Sunday! :(
Do you have notes, slides, or a transcript from it available?

Thanks!!

--
-Steven Hunter               *OS/2 Warp 4 * |
[e-mail] *AMD K6-2 400* |


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   20-Oct-99 01:38:04
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 03:24:08
Subj: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: [e-mail] (Eric Bennett)


SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget
EBNet Newswire


Boston, MA.  October 20, 1999.  The Software Pirates of America (SPA)
today announced a new lobbying campaign aimed at reducing the year 2000
budgets for the Department of Justice and the U.S. Copyright Office.

   "We believe that the Justice Department has handled enforcement of the
copyright laws in an inappropriate manner", said SPA President R. Edward
Baird, "and therefore it is appropriate for Congress to reduce the
agency's funding."  Baird cited industry statistics showing that the
activities of his organization have lowered costs to consumers and
businesses around the world by hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
"Many people who are prosecuted for violating copyright laws are
actually protected under the 'fair use' clause", claimed Baird.  "These
inappropriate and wayward prosecutions must be stopped."

   Industry analysts applauded the move.  Lem Ing of the Gardener Group
noted that the move shows an increasing trend in the technology industry
of groups being willing to challenge government waste.  "As usual,
credit for this innovation should go to Microsoft," said Ing, "given the
recent disclosure that Microsoft is lobbying against blatant waste in
the DOJ's antitrust division.  And given that a prominent Republican has
labeled the antitrust division as one of the most efficient units in the
government, Microsoft's action clearly shows that even relatively
efficient government agencies are still very wasteful.  We thus expect a
flood of actions similar to the action disclosed today by the SPA, all
aimed at at reducing overactive law enforcement activities."

   Bo Guss, an analysts with Datajest, concurred with Baird's analysis,
noting that "government prosecutions in this area clearly result in
higher costs to large numbers of consumers and corporations."

   Microsoft spokesman Tom Pilla blasted the group's efforts as
constituting a "blatant disregard for the law", but Baird insists that
his group's actions are ethical.  "Like Microsoft, we are simply
exercising our rights to speak freely and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances," he said.

   There have also been reports that, due to the number of privately filed
copyright suits, the SPA is considering lobbying for cuts in court
funding for district courts that have not shown sympathy to SPA members.
SPA officials refused to comment on these reports.



For more breaking news from EBNet Newswire, please visit our web site:
http://128.253.200.125/news/

--
EBNet Newswire, Inc.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Ho You Kong Fan Club (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      20-Oct-99 06:09:17
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 05:19:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

<[e-mail]> wrote in message news:7ujha4$g4j$[e-mail]...
> In article <7nZO3.11882$[e-mail]>,
>   "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Seems to happen as soon as some linvocate hits his frustration level
> > with being exposed as a liar one too many times.
>
> Surely, you're not implying that all Linux Advocates are liars.
No, certainly not. I said "some linvocate"s - if you are not a "linvocate"
then you are possible still not the "some"
>



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @home (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           20-Oct-99 02:25:23
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 05:19:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7uislm$o6j$[e-mail]>, on 10/19/99 at 05:51 PM,
   "Chad Myers" <[e-mail]> said:

> "Bob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:380c9ca3$2$obot$[e-mail]...

> >
> > Well, third party dialers connect virtually instantly. Only Win98
> > Second Edition seems to have fixed this bug which undoubtedly lies
> > somewhere in the grotesquely overbloated IE code segments.


> Or perhaps it exists in your mind? I have not, nor have I heard of
> anyone else experiencing this.

Then you  have a very, narrow circle of aquaintances. Not surprising, most
people prefer not to associate with assholes like you are proving to be.

> Perhaps it's your grotesquely overbloated imaginative FUD?

No, it's your blind lemming mind refusing to admit what the world knows.

> > Not at all. The same behavior occurred with IBM.NET, Cyberenet,
> > Bell Atlantic Net, Erols, and three or four local ISP's
> > including Pics. Moreover, the owner of PICS is an
> > extremely talented programmer who makes his primary living writing
> > custom applications for mainframes, midrange, and PC operating
> > systems. He searched long and hard for the reason before dropping
> > IE as the default browser and going with Netscape and a custom
> > dialer he wrote.

> Where do you get this stuff?

From my personal experience, from my client base, from Windows users.

> So you're saying that EVERY Win9x user using IBM.NET, Erols, et al is
> experiencing this behavior?

> I have news for you, they're not. It only appears to be you.

Only you make that claim. I said that the several dozens of machines we
have tested from various locations throughout the Delaware Valley with
over a dozen ISP's the problem exists. No lie you can concoct can deny the
truty of this.

> As far as the owner of PICS, I have no idea what you're talking about
> and I can make up people too, if you want to get into that battle.

You are a worthless fucking liar. I did not make up anyone. The owner of
PICS, Terry Rossi, is a long time friend.

> > All possible testing has been done including testing by the local
> > telco. The problem is a bug in Win 9x.

> A bug in Win9x that ONLY occurrs on your machines when connecting to a
> few ISPs and no one else has ever experienced this.

Liar. It occurs on dozens of machines with most of PICS clients who number
in the thousands.

> > > Sounds like Tyan's busmastering drivers, not Win9x.  I have a tyan
> > > MOBO and NT/2K and a PNP NIC and busmastering is working.
> >
> > Funny, but OS/2, Linux, and PC-DOS do not have this problem. It is a
> > bug in Windows 9x.

> Again, more FUD.  I have used Tyan MOBOs in the past and have not
> experienced this. Perhaps it's the PNP card?

No it is FACT, you imbecile, reporducable, demonstrable FACT. It occurs
with every PNP NIC I have tried including 3C50x's from 3COM, Noderunners
from Artisoft, generic clones, etc.

> > No it is not a user failure. I only run MS's Crap excuse for a
> > menu program for testing. I do not wish to fork over money for a
> > backup program and drivers for a device which will never see use
> > under the Mickey Mouse menu program. It has an option to remove the
> > device from this profile and refuses to do so. This is a bug.

> See, you're so biased and blinded, you can't see that it's most likely a
> problem with you (since no one else seems to have these problems).

If my clients didn't complain about these problems, I would not have found
and documented them. I only find them because my clients complain.

> Stick with Linux because you're so blind you'd never be able to handle
> Windows.

I not only can handle Windows, I am far too intelligent to be saddled with
a taskswitching menu program on top of a 19 year old operating system.

> Did you lose your job because your company realized they were wasting
> too much money on Un*x and replaced with NT and are having a better
> exprience so now you're jaded?

I own my own company which supports over 10,000 desktops in large and
small corporations. We support various flavors of UNIX including RedHat,
ATT, SCO, NT, OS/2, AS/400, Novell, and Windows. The number of problems
software related calls with Windows is exponentially larger than all other
OS's combined. In the past 4 years, our calls per WIN 9x client have been
between 6 and 16 times higher than any other OS.

> > Another documented bug which MS refuses to fix. FYI, I have done
> > what you suggest. It still insists on loading a standard modem on
> > the same port and IRQ as the USR.

> I just said that USR modems are usually not detected correctly by Win9x,
> you have to load the driver manually, which part of this don't you
> understand?

Which part of I did what you said do you not understand? No matter how,
when, or how often one installs the USR driver, the damn stupid menu
program insists on reinstalling the "standard" modem.

> I have done this 100 times, I know it works.

> I would point the finger at 3COM on this one since they provide OEM
> drivers to Microsoft for Windows releases.

Typical MS response. Wrong! 3COM has been complaining about this to MS for
over 4 years with no response. 3COM has forgotten more about Intel
platforms than MS knows.

> 3Com ranks in the top 10 of worst drivers.

All the world is wrong and you are right. If 3COM wrote such poor drivers,
why does 3COM sell more than half the branded modems sold worldwide?

> > Yes, the Windows Update. I was told by Mickey Mouse that I first
> must
> > download and install a required update. The instructions said after
> > downloading it would install and reboot the machine. It did. When
> the
> > machine rebooted, only the Primary C partition was accessible. Boot
> > Manager and the extended DOS partition which contained two volumes
> (D and
> > E) were gone and could not be recovered.

> Yeah, you know all those Win9x updates that screw with the MBR. hah..
> please.

Well, I will make you a little wager. I will deposit $100,000 with an
officer of any FDIC insured national bank branch within 50 miles of Mt.
Holly, New Jersey and you will do the same. You will then travel here and
watch it happen on two different machines. When it does, the entire
$200,000 is returned to me. If it does not, you keep the money.

> <sigh> I have installed the Win95 and the Win98 updates on dozens of
> very different machines at many different client sites and have never
> experienced anything like this.

Obviously you do not have any experience with hard disks partitioned by
other than MS Windoze.

> I have several trible-boot machines (NT or 2K/98/Linux) at home and have
> never had this problem. They were all installed in varying orders
> several different times.

I have over 10,000. I doubt you have more than 3.

> Sounds like user-failure again or simply IBM anonmolies.

> Or... more likely, simple lies and FUD aimed to help you vent your anger
> for the job you loss?

I never lost a job except when Eastern Airlines went bankrupt in 1987. And
flying for them was a part-time job while I ran my company and had been
for about 7 years prior to the bankruptcy. So, you stupid bastard, shut
the fuck up.

> > I reproduced the same behavior on one of my consoles running Boot
> > Manager, WIn 98, and three logical volumes in an extended DOS
> > partition. Boot Manager and the extended partition were history.
> > A certifiable bug.

> Sounds like Boot manager is the culprit here.

No, Windows is the problem. Linux, Novell, DR-DOS, PC-DOS, even MS-DOS
6.22 and below and NT do not create the problem. Only Win9x. It is a MS
bug.

> Which update in particular?  Can you even name it or are you just FUDing
> again?

Service Pack 1 among others.

> > Since Netware for all other operating systems and pseudo
> > operating systems such as the DOS addon called Win 9x, is
> > excellent, I do not believe for a minute that the fault lies
> > anywhere north, south, east, west, over, beside, or under Redmond.

> NetWare for all other operating systems? What other operating systems
> does NetWare run on?  IIRC, I thought NetWare was an OS? Perhaps I'm
> wrong, or you're just stupid.

Netware has clients for many operating systems. It only has problems with
WIN 9x.

> > In point of fact, most Windows 9x users are NOT on a network.
> > Therefore, MS has introduced needless overhead, aka a serious bug,
> > to the software. People on networks either have knowledge or
> > technical support in house. Individual users lack both.

> Heh.. show me numbers saying that a majority of Win9x users are
> consumer.  How many PCs are sold to consumers compared to Corporations?

According to US Government estimates put forth by Al Gore, more than
50,000,000 American homes have a computer. Industry figures indicate that
more than 45,000,000 of the will be Intel platforms. Other industry
figures show that more than 42,000,000 of them will be running some flavor
of Windows.

> I bet you will find that most PCs are in corporations.
> Anyhow, it's very easy to switch from MSCHAP to something else.

Many, yes. Most no way. Of those in commercial settings, many are in
SOHO's with no networking other than an dial up connection to the
Internet. In large and medium sized corporations with a network, the
number of PC vs. the number of Mainframe terminals is quite low.

> Oh.. and that's right, I forgot that setting up PPP in Linux was a
> one-step process right? HAH!

Linux doesn't pretend to be self-installing ala the windows menu and DOS
7. And setting up PPP on Linux takes far less time than installing Windows
9x.

> > No one example is false in any manner whatsoever. Your answers are
> > nothing more than lies, disinformation, and excuses unworthy of
> > kindergarten dropout.

> All your examples are gross exaggerations or outright lies.

Not a one is untrue in any way. Your lies cannot dispute demonstrable
facts. Put your money where you mouth is, asshole. --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                      20-Oct-99 07:47:16
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 05:19:02
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])

Richard Garrett Molpus? ([e-mail]?) wrote (Tue, 19 Oct 1999 04:31:18
>At the last raffle session (6:30 PM approx), the room count
>was at 125 - 150. I looked at the ticket roll after I made my


                                                                    With about
                                                                    34 vendors
                                                                     (bodies),
                                                                      maybe 20
                                                                    presenters
                             Shh...                                     and 30
                                                                     otherwise
                                                                     involved,
                                                                          that
                                                                        leaves
                                                                         about
                                                                        83 who
                                                                     came just
                                                                       for the
                                                                       thrill.

Someone knows exactly how many attended -- no "I've got an eye for it" needed.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 20-Oct-99 03:47:10
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 05:19:02
Subj: Re: Warp4-and-HPFS386

From: "dinkmeister" <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:00:46 +0100, Peter Stahl wrote:

:It was very easy to install, just unzip the files and change
:a couple of lines in CONFIG.SYS.
:But HPFS386 couldn't use standard HPFS ACLs so I was forced to make
:new ones.
:
:I thought it would be equal easy to change back to standard
:HPFS, just change CONFIG.SYS back to old contents, but HPFS
:will not change HPFS386's ACLs.

re-install hpfs386 then run this command to strip the hpfs386
acl's: PREPACL /P /B:acls.txt /D:C:
acls.txt is the file where the acl's get stored, C: is the drive letter
to remove the acls from.  now you can safely return to hpfs.ifs


- dink ( http://dink.org )





--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: none (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            20-Oct-99 08:08:05
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 05:19:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 22:51:30, "Chad Myers" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

I don't have any Windows 9x partitions on my PC, but I *did* use
win95's dialer to connect to IBM.net a couple of times. I noticed at
the time it took the dialer an unusually long amount of time to
establish a connect but, giving that this *was* win95 and I was
struggling big time, I didn't think much of it at the time.

> So you're saying that EVERY Win9x user using IBM.NET, Erols, et al is
> experiencing this behavior?
>
> I have news for you, they're not. It only appears to be you.
>
I don't know about everybody, but it sure is not only Bob.

BTW, I don't get the same laziness with pppd/kppp.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

|---------------------------------------------------|
|            <undefined O/S> boot options           |
|                                                   |
|               Please choose from list             |
|                                                   |
|       <crash>         <OS/2>        <linux>       |
|---------------------------------------------------|

NT-vocates made trouble, so here's the first P. C. sig-line.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         20-Oct-99 09:51:23
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 10:29:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>> If you claim to implement the functionality of another product, then
>>> it is expected that you deliver functionality equivalent to that
>>> other product.

>> Expected by whom, Mike?  You, and other illogical people like you?
>> If you call the product 1.1.8 with 1.2 functionality, it is logical
>> to expect that you do NOT deliver all of the 1.2 functions, otherwise
>> the product would have been called 1.2 to begin with.

> Not so.

Prove it, if you think you can, Mike.  Note that Curtis Bass agreed
with me, noting that he expected it to be called 1.2, if indeed it
implemented all of 1.2's functionality.

> The name of the product is irrelevent.

The version of the standard that is implemented is relevant, Mike.
IBM calls it 1.1.8 for a good reason.  You still haven't figured out
what that reason is.

> If you claim it offers the functionality of another product, one expects
> it to provide that functionality.

Not if it doesn't use the version number of that "another product",
Mike.

> It does not.

1.1.8 does implement 1.2 functionality.  Quit trying to confuse the
issue, Mike.

> In fact, if the functionality is provided in a non-standard way,
> IBM is forbidden from calling the product JDK 1.2.

The key word here is "if".  Are you claiming that IBM's implementation
of the 1.2 functionality is non-standard?

>>>>> If you have JVM which implements Java 1.2, it is expected to run run
>>>>> Java 1.2 applications.

>>>> The key word here, once again, is "if".  What Joseph said is "Java 1.2
>>>> functionality", not "Java 1.2".

>>> The ability to run Java 1.2 applications is a part of "Java 1.2
>>> functionality".

>> Irrelevant, given that IBM never said that that is one of the features
>> implemented in 1.1.8, Mike.

> IBM didn't make the claim that JDK 1.1.8 "implements Java 1.2
> functionality."

The JDK 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality, Mike.

> You've been making that claim.

Actually, that was Joseph's statement.  You claimed he was wrong.  I
explained why he is right and you are wrong.

> Don't put the onus on IBM.

Irrelevant, given that I haven't, Mike.  I simply noted that IBM didn't
claim the product had the ability to do what you asked about.  No onus
was placed on IBM by me.  Whatever gave you that ridiculous notion,
your reading comprehension problem again?

>>>>> IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does not implement Java 1.2;

>>>> IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality, Mike.

>>> No, it does not.

>> Incorrect.  Or are you claiming that the Java 2 security classes are
>> in Jave 1.1?

> The Java 2 security classes are in Java 2.  They are not in JDK 1.1.8.

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> What makes you think they are?

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]>

I pointed you to that article before, Mike.  Didn't you bother to read
it?  Now that I've provided evidence that Java 2 security classes are
in JDK 1.1.8, how about you providing evidence that they are not, as
you claimed above?

>>>>> if it did, IBM would call it a 1.2 JDK, not a 1.1.8 JDK.

>>>> IBM is, in fact, calling it 1.1.8 with some 1.2 functionality.  Why do
>>>> you have such a hard time with that fact, Mike?

>>> I don't have a hard time with that fact, Dave; I understand the meaning
>>> of the word "some".  Do you?

>> Obviously not.

> Glad you agree.

I see you resorted to your typical deletion tactic, Mike.  Just how
dishonest do you intend to be?

>>>> Does it really bother you so much for the facts about Java for OS/2
>>>> to be mentioned?

>>> Not at all.  What I was correcting was the *misinformation* about Java
>>> for OS/2 -- that is, the claim that it delivers the functionality of
>>> Java 1.2.  It does not.

>> It does deliver Java 1.2 functionality, Mike, which is what Joseph wrote.
>> I've even listed the implemented features, contrary to your prediction.

> Your list is wrong.

Prove it, if you think you can, Mike.  Where's your evidence?  I've
provided a reference to mine.  All you've done is pontificate, as usual.

>>> Go publish a JDK that contains only the Integer class, then
>>> claim that it implements "Java 1.2 functionality".

>> Irrelevant, given that IBM didn't do that.  But IBM did publish a JDK
>> that includes Java 2 security classes and Swing, for example, and claims
>> that it implements Java 1.2 functionality.

> You are wrong on both of these counts, Dave.

Prove it, if you think you can, Mike.  Where's your evidence?  I've
provided a reference to mine.  All you've done is pontificate, as usual.

> IBM's JDK does not include the Java 2 security classes, nor does it
> include Swing.

Then why does Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> say
otherwise, Mike?

> Furthermore, Swing was introduced before Java 2.

It's in IBM's list, Mike.

> Download the IBM's JDK 1.1.8 and tell me which security classes introduced
> with Java 2 are included?

Read Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> and tell me that
security classes aren't included, Mike.

> You won't find any.

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> Tell me which swing classes are included?

Read Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> and tell me that
Swing isn't included, Mike.

> You won't find any.

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

>>> Then see everyone laugh in your face, just like they're doing now.

>> Who's laughing, Mike, excluding the ones laughing at you?

> Anyone who understands anything about Java.

Would that include IBM, Mike?

> You're not included, which is why you don't realize it.

I realize what IBM wrote, Mike, and I'll take IBM's word over yours
any day.

> You're babbling on about Java, yet your knowledge of the subject at
> hand is limited to your incomplete understanding of what you read on
> IBM's web site.

Incorrect, Mike.

>>> You just want to talk about a different subject, because you, as
>>> usual, jumped into an argument about a subject which you are
>>> ignorant of.

>> Incorrect, given that I haven't jumped into any argument about a subject
>> with which I'm ignorant.

> Then why did you claim that JDK 1.1.8 implements Java 2 security classes

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]>

> when it does not?

Prove that it does not, Mike.  I've provided a reference to my evidence.
All you've done is pontificate, as usual.

> Then why did you claim Swing is part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]>

> when it is not?

Prove that it does not, Mike.  I've provided a reference to my evidence.
All you've done is pontificate, as usual.

> Why are you claiming Swing is "Java 1.2 functionality" when you earlier
> claimed that only features introduced with Java 1.2 qualify?

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]>

> Because you are ignorant of the subject at hand.  As usual.

How ironic, coming from the person who is ignorant of:
Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]>

As usual.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         20-Oct-99 10:22:12
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 10:29:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>> But any resonable person would realize that you are wrong,

>>>>>> I am not wrong when I note that a FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
>>>>>> Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.

>>>>> Yes, Dave, you are.

>>>> No I'm not, Mike.  Even the compiler vendor states that the compiler
>>>> implements Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.

>>> Evidence, please.

>> WATCOM FORTRAN 77 version 11.0a.  Supports SELECT syntax, DO/END DO
>> syntax, and 132 character source lines, for example; not in FORTRAN 77,
>> but they are in Fortran 90.

> That's not evidence of what the vendor stated, Dave.

It's evidence that the compiler implements Fortran 90 functionality as
extensions, Mike.  That's what you asked for.

> Show me the quote where the compiler vendor states "implements
> Fortran 90 functionality".

I didn't refer to any quotation, Mike.

> You can't.

Nor do I need to, given that I didn't refer to any quotation.

> What you presented instead is a list of features,

Not just features, Mike, but Fortran 90 functionality.

> then claimed it means the same thing.

In this case, those particular features do represent Fortran 90
functionality.  The compiler also has other features that do not
represent Fortran 90 functionality, thus a "list of features" won't
necessarily represent Fortran 90 functionality.  That's why the
choice of words is important, Mike, and why your choice is a poor one.

> All you're doing is repeating your argument,

Incorrect.

> not supporting it with evidence.

The Fortran 90 functionality I referred to is indeed evidence, Mike.

>>>>> If you claim that a particular FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
>>>>> Fortran 90 functionality as an extension,

>>>> The key word here, once again, is "if".  I claimed "extensions", Mike,
>>>> not "extension".  That alone should tell you something.

>>> It doesn't.  Whether the functionality is encapsulated in one extension
>>> or multiple extensions is irrelevent.  One expects the functionality
>>> to be there.

I see you're resorting to your usual deletion tactics once again, Mike.
I had inserted responses to the first two of your sentences above.  Where
are they?

>> Incorrect.  One does not expect Fortran 90 functionality to be in a
>> FORTRAN 77 compiler.

> Yet you claim the FORTRAN 77 compiler implements Fortran 90 functionality.

The particular compiler I referred to does.  However, in my previous
response, I was referring to a generic FORTRAN 77 compiler.  In
something called a FORTRAN 77 compiler, one expects FORTRAN 77
functionality, not Fortran 90 functionality.

> Why, then, would one not expect Fortran 90 functionality from the
> compiler in question?

I wasn't referring to the compiler in question when I responded to your
above remark, Mike.  I was referring to a generic FORTRAN 77 compiler.
The reference to "FORTRAN 77" makes it clear that one should not expect
Fortran 90 functionality.  The specific compiler I referred to does claim
to offer Fortran 90 functionality, however, while still calling itself a
FORTRAN 77 compiler, which means that one should expect some, but not all,
Fortran 90 features.  If one were to expect all Fortran 90 features, then
the vendor would have called it a Fortran 90 compiler.

>>> Yet parts of it are apparently missing.

>> Of course.

> Glad you agree.

Still up to your usual deletion tactics, eh Mike?  Let's reinsert what
I really wrote:

DT] Of course.  If no parts of Fortran 90 were missing from the compiler,
DT] then they should have called it a Fortran 90 compiler, not a FORTRAN 77
DT] compiler.

I see you couldn't come up with a logical response to the portion you
chose to delete.  Just how dishonest do you intend to be, Mike?

>>>>> would not a reasonable person conclude that the compiler in question
>>>>> will compile programs written for Fortran 90?

>>>> No, because if the compiler supported all of Fortran 90, then the
>>>> vendor would obviously call it a Fortran 90 compiler.

>>> Why so?

>> For marketing reasons, Mike.  Support for a more recent standard is a
>> selling point.

> And IBM's JDK 1.1.8 does not support JDK 1.2, the more recent standard.

It does implement JDK 1.2 functionality, Mike.  Why do you think IBM
still calls it JDK 1.1.8?  Obviously, it's for the same reason I gave
previously involving Fortran.  You know, the portion you deleted.  The
portion I reinserted above.  The portion to which you didn't have a
logical response.

>>>>> Yes, he would.  But that conclusion would be wrong because the
>>>>> statement is wrong.

>>>> Incorrect, given that the statement is not wrong.  The statement is
>>>> merely misinterpreted by people like you, who don't understand the
>>>> language properly.

>>> No, the statement is wrong.  If "Fortran 90 functionality" is
>>> promised, then one expects functionality equivalent to Fortran 90.

>> Illogical. If one expects functionality equivalent to Fortran 90, then
>> the compiler would have been called a Fortran 90 compiler, Mike.  It
>> wasn't.  That alone should tell you something.  Why do you think IBM is
>> calling their JDK 1.1.8 rather than 1.2?

> Because it doesn't support the functionality of JDK 1.2,

It does support some of it, Mike.  Quit trying to confuse the issue.

> which is the point.

The point is that it's perfectly correct to state that JDK 1.1.8
implements JDK 1.2 functionality, because it does, Mike.  Nobody
should logically expect it to implement all of the 1.2 functionality,
because otherwise IBM would have called it 1.2.  IBM did not.  There's
a reason for that, and if you were capable of comprehending that
reason, then you couldn't logically conclude that "implements 1.2
functionality" means "all" rather than "some" of the functionality.

> Glad you agree.

I haven't agreed with your point, Mike.  Still having reading
comprehension problems?

>>>>>>> If the intent of the statement is that JDK 1.1.8 implements the
>>>>>>> features found in JDK 1.1.8, why mention JDK 1.2 at all?

>>>>>> The key word here is "if".  The intent is to note how IBM has
>>>>>> incorporated some Java 1.2 features in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.

>>>>> What, then, makes something a "Java 1.2" feature?

>>>> A feature in Java 1.2 that wasn't in Java 1.1, Mike.

>>> There are many features in Java 1.2 that weren't in JDK 1.1.  However,
>>> some of those features were introduced in JDK 1.1.1 -> JDK 1.1.7.
>>> Do those qualify?

>> Obviously not, given that we're talking about 1.1.8, Mike.

> I'll note this for future reference.

Will those future references include any evidence?  Let's find out.

>>>>> Which features are you referring to?

>>>> The features from Java 1.2 that IBM chose to implement in Java 1.1.8,
>>>> Mike.

>>> Which features would those be?

>> Java 2 security classes,

> Wrong.

I suggest you read Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]>,
Mike.

> IBM did not implement Java 2 security classes in Java 1.1.8.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
Mike.

> The extra security classes that they include in the Java 1.1.8 JDK are
> not included in Java 1.2.

IBM refers to them as Java 2 security classes, Mike.  Of course,
according to you, 1.2 equals 2.  I assumed you'd at least be self
consistent.

> In fact, they are not allowed to do what you claim; licensees are
> barred from adding classes into the namespace of the the core JDK
> packages.

Then why does Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]>
indicate otherwise, Mike?

>> Remote Method Invocation over IIOP,

> Wrong.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
Mike.

> RMI over IIOP is not a Java 2 feature; it is a standard
> extension.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates
otherwise, Mike.

> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
Mike.

>> the COMM API,

> Wrong.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
Mike.

> The Communications API is also not a part of Java 2.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates otherwise,
Mike.

> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
Mike.

>> and Swing, for example.

> Swing was introduced before Java 2.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates otherwise,
Mike.

> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
Mike.

> Sorry, you're 0 for 4.

Incorrect, Mike.  Did you bother to even read the evidence I pointed
you to?

> It's say "nice try", but that was pretty pathetic.

Your so-called "logic" is pretty pathetic, Mike.

>>> You are, once again, arguing from a position of arrogant ignorance.

>> On the contrary, I am, once again, arguing from a position of knowledge
>> and logic.

> Then why are all of your answers wrong?

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> Because you really have no idea what you're talking about.

I suggest you read Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]>,
Mike.

> As usual.

How ironic.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            20-Oct-99 11:23:22
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 10:29:02
Subj: Re: Revenge of the OS/2 User and Linux

From: [e-mail] (Lee Riemenschneider)

On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:25:40, Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Just a side point here.  I have been employed by 3 Fortune 500 companies
> as a software engineer (SIAC (who produces the software that runs the
> New York Stock Exchange), Northern Telecom, and IBM), and I have yet to
> encounter any CASE tools, UML tools, or any such thing.  Has anyone seen
> these items actually deployed in industry anywhere?  From my experience,
> these such tools are deployed in an academic environment only.  I'm
> curious if others have seen otherwise.
>
I have seen (and used) the Shlaer-Mellor OOA tool called Bridgepoint
from Project Technologies (www.projtech.com).  Shlaer-Mellor OOA allows
you to go from models to code,  The models are executable, so you can
verify your analysis.  With the add-on tools (www.roxsoftware.com for C
, and projtech for C++), you can get 100% code generation.  At work, we
have a developed in-house code generator.

UML is also making some in-roads, but in it's present state,
non-executable models and only ~60% automatic code generation, it's not
quite ready for prime time.

I believe that modelling is the next step for software.  It is to high
level language, like high level language is to assembler.

Lee W. Riemenschneider
Die Hard Purdue Fan!
OS/2 User and Supporter

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WinStar GoodNet, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     20-Oct-99 14:02:02
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 10:29:02
Subj: Re: Old News!

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>


"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> This was reported last week and has nothing to do with OS/2.

Gee you think so? My company supplies PC hardware to IBM. For the past 6
months I've been pushing our directors to start OS/2 drivers with our
products. Several weeks ago (during Warpstock Europa) we brought over an
American developer to write drivers for a scanner we are going to
market. Do you think the OS/2 community would have liked having a
scanner with native OS/2 drivers all for under $175US??

What do you think my directors are thinking now? But you're right....it
has nothing to do with OS/2, does it?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Internet Access Eindhoven, the Netherlands (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  20-Oct-99 08:05:29
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 10:29:02
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something claiming to be a <[e-mail]> tholened:

> > I'm afraid tholenism and logic are incompatible, so I had to choose.

> Incorrect.

I'm by no means surprised to see you rejecting an obviously true statement,
Tholen.  Tholenism and logic are two wildly separate things.  Every now and
again, however, it is entertaining to plumb the depths of tholenism, though.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  20-Oct-99 08:06:00
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 10:29:02
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something claiming to be a <[e-mail]> tholened:

> > Dave Tholen sung the following out of key, shattering his fragile ego:
>
> Illogical, given that no singing was involved, Marty.

The only thing illogical here is Tholen, who knows not how to read what is
written.  Tholen indeed sings out of key, shattering his supercilious ego.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  20-Oct-99 08:05:26
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 10:29:02
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Oy, something like a <[e-mail]> tholened:

> > Every time I tried to tell you,
> > the words just came out wrong,
> > so I had to point out your illogic
> > in a song.
>
> I see you still didn't answer my question, nor did you explain why
> you're suddenly able to read my postings.

Marty is a humorous guy, Tholen, but I suspect that nobody is surprised to
see his humor fly right over your head.  And this thing you have about
killfiles: is the reason you don't use one because you don't know how to
remove it or delete an entry?  If so, I'm glad to be able to tell you that
such a file *can* be modified at a later date.  So why not put all of usenet
in your killfile, Tholen?   That way, what's left won't challenge you.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  20-Oct-99 08:06:02
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 10:29:02
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

What's his name <[e-mail]> tholened:

> > The day only what you say is relevant, is the day I kill myself.
>
> Non sequitur, and not even grammatical.

Grammatical enough for you to understand it, apparently, and dismiss it,
Tholen.  What he says is quite accurate: if you've written only "relevant"
things, Tholen, I'd kill myself, too.  But no worries, I'm perfectly safe.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                20-Oct-99 14:18:18
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:26
Subj: Re: Time for some humor re:Warpstock

From: Jasper de Keijzer <[e-mail]>

I agree completely.

If we look to the past of IBM they always had a problem with deciding
what to do and what to

support. And they still do have that problem. In 1990 we could buy
Novell in blue boxes

while at the same time IBM was "supporting" Lan Server. So while one
part of IBM tries to

sell OS/2 another part competes with that and even abandons the OS. If
you call IBM for

support on OS/2 they simply say that they do not support OS/2, but if
you ring next time

they do support it. It completely depends on who is picking up the
phone. IBM is very

confusing, there is no clear strategy on OS's.

Example:
Sometime ago a relative of me called IBM to get some support on an AIX
system. The man who

picked up the phone was a AS400 specialist. He directly started to argue
against AIX and

tried to sell AS400. When the person asked why he was doing that the IBM
man said: "For each

time a try to sell AS400 I get a bonus". The company of my relative is
now looking at SUN

and Mickeysoft just to get rid of these kind of situations.

My advice to IBM is the following:

Show to the outside world a clear direction. And get all the employees
involved in that.
The latter seems to me most(!!) important.

My naive question to IBM is the following:

- Please put the dreamteam together which was responsible for OS/2 Warp
3.0. And let them

come up with a new OS/2 version. But only when all IBM'ers clearly say,
YES we support it and were are so involved....


Jasper de Keijzer.



Kelly Robinson wrote:
>
> First of all, a statement which actually makes sense:  IBM doesn't know what
> to go do with itself.  THAT is why we all blame microsoft: IBM is such a
> thickheaded retarded dipwad and because OS/2 is *owned* by IBM we can't ever
> blame IBM for anything they do especially with OS/2.   Noooooooooooooooo, we
> can't do that!  So let's bark up another tree...  oh look, there's a
> gigantic blue tree which is glowing blue, yellow, red, and green.  No, it's
> not an economy size box of 'lucky charms' it's Microsoft!  Yeah, let's rag
> on them because they found the american dream (disgusting as it is).
>
> Now, it's humor time...
> In order to get more people to get to Warpstock, do this:
>
> Combine it with a sci-fi event.  That way, retards looking like Klingons
> (and probably try to sound like them, too) or wookies can stop by all the
> OS/2 booths (which are also dressed up as companies who are not promoting a
> dead product, IBM not excepted.)
>
> But you're right, OS/2 isn't dead!  it's in a far worse state than death.
> This state is called "Owned and copyrighted by IBM."
>
> It's been said before by many.  Replace IBM with someone else and two things
> will happen:  OS/2's quality will skyrocket and the motivation of the
> company would find a way to sell and support it with applications of the
> same quality as that for that microslothy systems stuff.
>
> Once again, the ball is in IBM's court.  And, once again, IBM doesn't know
> what to go do with itself.  THAT is why we all blame microsoft - IBM is such
> a thickhead and because OS/2 is owned by IBM we can't ever blame IBM for
> anything.   Noooooooooooooooo, we can't do that!  So let's bark up another
> tree...
>
> --
>
> Please do me the honor and visit:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/~timanov/ispy/index.html

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Compuware Uniface Amsterdam (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 12:08:24
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:26
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7ui7ie$f1c$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Joseph wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer,
> >>>>>>>>>> bummer.
>
> >>>>>>>>> It's also bullshit.
>
> >>>>>>>> Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2
> >>>>>>>> functionality.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Download something like NetBeans, that requires
> >>>>>>>>> JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
>
> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java
1.1.8
> >>>>>>>> implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement
> >>>>>>>> SOME of it, however.
>
> >>>>>>> On the contrary, your very own logic proves that he said
exactly
> >>>>>>> that (Re your argument from the "costly mistakes" thread of
some
> >>>>>>> years ago which you've conveniently forgotten here).
>
> >>>>>> I've not forgotten anything here.  Ironically, you've forgotten
> >>>>>> something, namely that my "very own logic" involved the usage
of
> >>>>>> "prevent", as in "prevent costly mistakes" or "prevent wild
> >>>>>> fires", which you insisted was ambiguous.  The quotation above
> >>>>>> does not involve anything analogous to "prevent", which is why
> >>>>>> Timbol's interpretation is incorrect, and also why your "on the
> >>>>>> contrary" is incorrect.
>
> >>>>> Wrong.
>
> >>>> Is that the best you can do?  If you really didn't forget about
> >>>> "prevent", then why did you omit such a crucial piece of history?
>
> >> Note:  no response.
>
> Note:  still no response.

My comments do not affect the inaccuracy of your argument.

> >>>>> Go back and reread the thread to find out why.
>
> >>>> Rereading the thread won't explain why you omitted the crucial
word
> >>>> "prevent" from your first response.
>
> >>> It will reveal why your Java support statement is at odds with the
> >>> argument you made 4 years ago in the "costly mistakes" thread
>
> >> No, it won't.
>
> > Yes, it will.
>
> Impossible.

Possible.

> >> The reason is quite clear, as I already noted:  there
> >> is nothing analogous to "prevent" in the quotation above.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Feel free to identify the allegedly analogous word or words, if you
> think you can, Lucien.
>
> > Reread the thread,
>
> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
> recollection of the issue.
>
> > it'll explain why your argument about the Java statement (as well
> > as the argument below) is wrong.
>
> Impossible.

Possible.
Hint: Your JDK statement supports my argument in the old thread and not
yours.
Reread the thread to find out why.

Quiz 2 grade: F

Lucien S.

> >> Let's use an example.  Suppose an album cover says:
> >>
> >>    Encore!
> >>    The New York Philharmonic
> >>    performs works by
> >>    Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss
> >>
> >> Now, are you going to expect the album to include performances of
the
> >> complete works by Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss?  You shouldn't,
> >> because there's nothing in the definition of the word "performs" to
> >> suggest such completeness.
> >>
> >> Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality",
there
> >> is nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to suggest
that
> >> all such functionality was implemented.
> >>
> >> But when one writes "prevent costly mistakes", there is something
in
> >> the definition of "prevent" that does suggest all such mistakes.
As
> >> I noted the last time we had the discussion, the definition of
> >> "prevent" includes "to keep from happening".
> >>
> >> You can toss around all the X bar syntax you want to obfuscate the
> >> issue.  It won't do you any good when you ignore the definitions of
> >> the words.
>
> Note:  no response.  I'm not surprised.  Lucien doesn't have one (at
> least he doesn't have a logical one).
>
> >>> (if you can follow your own argument therein, that is).
>
> >> I can.  You obviously couldn't.  That's your problem, not mine.
>
> Note:  no response.
>
> >>>> I suggest you reread the thread to find out why you were wrong
> >>>> then (and now).  You apparently need to refresh your memory about
> >>>> certain critical portions of the argument, like the meaning of
> >>>> "prevent".
> >>>>
> >>>> "Only you can prevent forest fires."
> >>>>    --Smokey Bear
> >>>>
> >>>> "That's ambiguous."
> >>>>    --Lucien
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 12:05:04
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:26
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7ui78l$ddq$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>> Lucien writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:
>
> >>>>> Feel free to reread the "costly mistakes" thread, if you're
> >>>>> interested; it's still archived on USENET.
>
> >>>> Indeed, complete with an explanation of why you're wrong, and
> >>>> complete with your attempt to obfuscate the issue by tossing
> >>>> around jargon.
>
> >>>>> Of course, you'll be no more capable of understanding what was
> >>>>> going on than Tholen was.
>
> >>>> It's hard to be more capable of understanding what was going go
> >>>> than I was, because I understood quite well what was going on,
> >>>> including an
>
> >>> Nope. You were lost the whole time.
>
> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> > The proof is in the old thread.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> > Reread it.
>
> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are

Translation: Tholen refuses to reread the thread, because the evidence
it contains was a public embarrasment for him and his "costly mistakes"
argument and he doesn't want a repeat performance now.

Typical.

Final grade: F

Lucien S.

> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
> recollection of the issue.
>
> >>>> understanding of your attempts to obfuscate the issue by tossing
> >>>> around jargon.
>
> >>> Wrong. You're still lost.
>
> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> > The proof is in the old thread.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> > Reread it.
>
> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
> recollection of the issue.
>
> >>>> The fact that you omitted the crucial word "prevent" from your
> >>>> first recent response demonstrates either an intentional attempt
to
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> How can you say that before one of the two possibilities even gets
> >> mentioned?
>
> > My statements don't affect the inaccuracy of your remarks.
>
> What alleged inaccuracy?  And why didn't you answer the question?
>
> >>>> deceive readers now, or that you did not understand what was
going
> >>>> on
>
> >>> Still wrong.
>
> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> > The proof is in the old thread.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> > Reread it.
>
> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
> recollection of the issue.
>
> >>>> back then, which would be rather ironic, considering the comment
> >>>> you made above.
>
> >>> Still wrong...
>
> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> > The proof is in the old thread.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> > Reread it.
>
> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
> recollection of the issue.
>
> >>> Quiz grade: F.
>
> >> Note the complete absence of any supporting explanation.  It
figures.
>
> > The supporting explanation is in the old thread.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> > Reread it.
>
> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
> recollection of the issue.
>
> >> Same old Lucien.
>
> > Quiz retake grade: F.
>
> Note the complete absence of any supporting explanation.  It figures.
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 12:12:05
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:26
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7uj79t$7f0$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> > Curtis Bass wrote:
>
> >> Ahh, the wonders of the Ambiguities of English . . .
> >>
> >> That's one problem with debate -- one has to choose words very
> >> carefully.  To say that "X implements Y functionality" really
doesn't
> >> mean much, unless it's qualified. Does X implement *all* of  Y's
> >> funtionality, or only *some* of it?  Unfortunately, the original
quote
> >> can be correctly interpreted both ways, and arguing that one
> >> interpretation is "more correct" than the other is just as
meaningless
> >> as the original quote itself.
>
> > This is essentially a correct analysis.
>
> Incorrect.

No, it is correct.

> See my response to Curtis for why.

Your response is wrong and you lost the previous argument. The evidence
is in the old thread.

Quiz 3 grade: F

Lucien S.

> > BTW, D. Tholen engaged in and lost an argument with me on this
subject
> > about 5 years ago
>
> Incorrect again.  I did not lose any argument with you on that
subject.
> You failed to comprehend the definition of "prevent", which is why you
> lost that argument.
>
> > - his pants are down again on this very same subject
>
> Incorrect again, as I've clearly demonstrated in my responses to you.
>
> > now with these JDK statements, unwittingly relying on the same
> > fallacies he committed before.
>
> Incorrect again.  First of all, there were no fallacies on my part
> before, and there is no word analogous to "prevent" in the present
> situation.
>
> > Anyway, the old thread contains a detailed syntactic account for
this
> > particular alternation
>
> And no evidence of comprehension of the definition of "prevent", which
> is why you lost that argument.
>
> > so you might be interested in reading it.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > It is still archived on USENET; do a search on "costly mistakes" in
this
> > newsgroup and it should come up (it may have been cross-posted to
one
> > or more of the Windows advocacy NG's as well).
>
> I also encourage him to look up the definition of "prevent" in the
> dictionary, something that you apparently failed to do.
>
> >> Specifically, if one looks at the available facts, it's reasonable
> >> to conclude that IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 does not implement *all*
of
> >> 1.2's functionality, but only *some* of it (assuming that it
> >> implements *any* of it at all). If that wasn't the case (i.e., if
it
> >> implemented *all* of 1.2's funtionality), it stands to reason that
the
> >> JDK would have been *called* 1.2.
>
> Interesting that you chose not to respond to this particular item,
which
> restates what I've been saying.
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 12:16:19
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:26
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7ui7ta$f1c$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> > Mike Timbol wrote:
>
> >> I wrote:
>
> >>> Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality",
> >>> there is nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to
> >>> suggest that all such functionality was implemented.
>
> >> Except that there is.  If you claim to implement a standard, then
> >> it is assumed that you implement the entire standard.  Any other
> >> interpretation conveys no useful information.  The Integer class
> >> is part of the Java 1.2 standard.  But you cannot claim that you
> >> implement Java 1.2 functionality simply because you've implemented
> >> the Integer class.
>
> > BTW, it's interesting (and humorous) to note that Tholen's new
argument
> > here is based on the same fallacious reasoning he unknowingly
employed
> > in the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> What allegedly fallacious reasoning, Lucien?

It's all in the old thread. Reread it, if you think you can follow it.

  Meanwhile, I've pointed
> out your own fallacious reasoning, and you had no response.

Any response of mine will not affect the illogic of your argument.

Quiz grade 4: F

Lucien S.

 I'm
> referring to the definitions of "implements" and "performs", which do
> not imply "all", and the definition of "prevent" which does
imply "all".
>
> > Further proof that he never followed along....
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who apparently didn't follow along,
> based on the fact that you omitted "prevent" from your recent
> recollection.
>
> You're obviously not following along this time either, given the way
> you've failed to respond to the argument that if all the functionality
> of Java 1.2 had been included in Java 1.1.8, then IBM would have
called
> it Java 1.2 rather than 1.1.8.
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                              20-Oct-99 12:45:02
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:26
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: "Chad Myers" <[e-mail]>

heh.. Pretty good, well formed =)

One of the best parody news items I've seen.

However, I didn't get the joke, was it
supposed to be funny? It seemed pretty
realistic in most facets except for the bogus
names and such.

What'd I miss?

Chad

Eric Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
>
>
> SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget
> EBNet Newswire
>
>
> Boston, MA.  October 20, 1999.  The Software Pirates of America (SPA)
> today announced a new lobbying campaign aimed at reducing the year 2000
> budgets for the Department of Justice and the U.S. Copyright Office.

>    "We believe that the Justice Department has handled enforcement of the
> copyright laws in an inappropriate manner", said SPA President R. Edward
> Baird, "and therefore it is appropriate for Congress to reduce the
> agency's funding."  Baird cited industry statistics showing that the
> activities of his organization have lowered costs to consumers and
> businesses around the world by hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
> "Many people who are prosecuted for violating copyright laws are
> actually protected under the 'fair use' clause", claimed Baird.  "These
> inappropriate and wayward prosecutions must be stopped."
>
>    Industry analysts applauded the move.  Lem Ing of the Gardener Group
> noted that the move shows an increasing trend in the technology industry
> of groups being willing to challenge government waste.  "As usual,
> credit for this innovation should go to Microsoft," said Ing, "given the
> recent disclosure that Microsoft is lobbying against blatant waste in
> the DOJ's antitrust division.  And given that a prominent Republican has
> labeled the antitrust division as one of the most efficient units in the
> government, Microsoft's action clearly shows that even relatively
> efficient government agencies are still very wasteful.  We thus expect a
> flood of actions similar to the action disclosed today by the SPA, all
> aimed at at reducing overactive law enforcement activities."
>
>    Bo Guss, an analysts with Datajest, concurred with Baird's analysis,
> noting that "government prosecutions in this area clearly result in
> higher costs to large numbers of consumers and corporations."
>
>    Microsoft spokesman Tom Pilla blasted the group's efforts as
> constituting a "blatant disregard for the law", but Baird insists that
> his group's actions are ethical.  "Like Microsoft, we are simply
> exercising our rights to speak freely and to petition the government for
> a redress of grievances," he said.
>
>    There have also been reports that, due to the number of privately filed
> copyright suits, the SPA is considering lobbying for cuts in court
> funding for district courts that have not shown sympathy to SPA members.
> SPA officials refused to comment on these reports.
>
>
>
> For more breaking news from EBNet Newswire, please visit our web site:
> http://128.253.200.125/news/
>
> --
> EBNet Newswire, Inc.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               20-Oct-99 09:05:06
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:26
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> I see you still didn't explain why you're suddenly reading that which
> is supposedly being filtered out by your killfile.

Relax, Mr. Tholen,
My killfile is programmed to receive.
You can check out any time you like
but you can never leave.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            20-Oct-99 16:37:09
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: "DLO News" <[e-mail]>

I think this tells us that in the 'real' world of operating systems and
software parody and reality have merged (anyone who has read Kelly
Robinson's (to pick on just one of many) posts to this newsgroup would have
figured that already). Sometimes you just can't tell what's for real
anymore.....


Chad Myers wrote in message ...
>heh.. Pretty good, well formed =)
>
>One of the best parody news items I've seen.
>
>However, I didn't get the joke, was it
>supposed to be funny? It seemed pretty
>realistic in most facets except for the bogus
>names and such.
>
>What'd I miss?
>
>Chad
>
>Eric Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>news:[e-mail]...
>>
>>
>> SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget
>> EBNet Newswire
>>
>>
>> Boston, MA.  October 20, 1999.  The Software Pirates of America (SPA)
>> today announced a new lobbying campaign aimed at reducing the year 2000
>> budgets for the Department of Justice and the U.S. Copyright Office.
>
>>    "We believe that the Justice Department has handled enforcement of the
>> copyright laws in an inappropriate manner", said SPA President R. Edward
>> Baird, "and therefore it is appropriate for Congress to reduce the
>> agency's funding."  Baird cited industry statistics showing that the
>> activities of his organization have lowered costs to consumers and
>> businesses around the world by hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
>> "Many people who are prosecuted for violating copyright laws are
>> actually protected under the 'fair use' clause", claimed Baird.  "These
>> inappropriate and wayward prosecutions must be stopped."
>>
>>    Industry analysts applauded the move.  Lem Ing of the Gardener Group
>> noted that the move shows an increasing trend in the technology industry
>> of groups being willing to challenge government waste.  "As usual,
>> credit for this innovation should go to Microsoft," said Ing, "given the
>> recent disclosure that Microsoft is lobbying against blatant waste in
>> the DOJ's antitrust division.  And given that a prominent Republican has
>> labeled the antitrust division as one of the most efficient units in the
>> government, Microsoft's action clearly shows that even relatively
>> efficient government agencies are still very wasteful.  We thus expect a
>> flood of actions similar to the action disclosed today by the SPA, all
>> aimed at at reducing overactive law enforcement activities."
>>
>>    Bo Guss, an analysts with Datajest, concurred with Baird's analysis,
>> noting that "government prosecutions in this area clearly result in
>> higher costs to large numbers of consumers and corporations."
>>
>>    Microsoft spokesman Tom Pilla blasted the group's efforts as
>> constituting a "blatant disregard for the law", but Baird insists that
>> his group's actions are ethical.  "Like Microsoft, we are simply
>> exercising our rights to speak freely and to petition the government for
>> a redress of grievances," he said.
>>
>>    There have also been reports that, due to the number of privately
filed
>> copyright suits, the SPA is considering lobbying for cuts in court
>> funding for district courts that have not shown sympathy to SPA members.
>> SPA officials refused to comment on these reports.
>>
>>
>>
>> For more breaking news from EBNet Newswire, please visit our web site:
>> http://128.253.200.125/news/
>>
>> --
>> EBNet Newswire, Inc.
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          20-Oct-99 09:38:28
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Bob Germer posted :

> > As far as the owner of PICS, I have no idea what you're talking about
> > and I can make up people too, if you want to get into that battle.
>
> You are a worthless fucking liar. I did not make up anyone. The owner of
> PICS, Terry Rossi, is a long time friend.

Be careful that in the heat of the moment you don't divulge the names
of individuals or establishments who/which would have otherwise
prohibited this from being done.

--
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
         <remove _nospam_>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          20-Oct-99 09:45:22
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Bob Germer posted :

May I interject here in the heat of the moment. :)))

==8<===
> > Stick with Linux because you're so blind you'd never be able to handle
> > Windows.
>
> I not only can handle Windows, I am far too intelligent to be saddled with
> a taskswitching menu program on top of a 19 year old operating system.

That's not a statement that demands respect from one who claims to be
so intelligent.

> > Did you lose your job because your company realized they were wasting
> > too much money on Un*x and replaced with NT and are having a better
> > exprience so now you're jaded?
>
> I own my own company which supports over 10,000 desktops in large and
> small corporations. We support various flavors of UNIX including RedHat,
> ATT, SCO, NT, OS/2, AS/400, Novell, and Windows. The number of problems
> software related calls with Windows is exponentially larger than all other
> OS's combined. In the past 4 years, our calls per WIN 9x client have been
> between 6 and 16 times higher than any other OS.

Don't you think the size and technical competence of the userbase has
something to do with this? Hand machines with Unix and linux over to
the same set of users. Ask them to use these OS's in the same manner
that they use win9x and see what the support call level is like. Then
I'll take your comment seriously. :)

--
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
         <remove _nospam_>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          20-Oct-99 09:57:11
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net posted :

> I don't have any Windows 9x partitions on my PC, but I *did* use
> win95's dialer to connect to IBM.net a couple of times. I noticed at
> the time it took the dialer an unusually long amount of time to
> establish a connect but, giving that this *was* win95 and I was
> struggling big time, I didn't think much of it at the time.

You're so credible. What is it that you were struggling so much with?

ROTFL.

Most technical users find that the problem with win9x is that there's
no substance to it and I agree. You just use the thing and spit it
out. No good multitasking, robustness, stability, reliability or
flexibility to tap on ..... nothing really. IMHO, there's no real
reason for an advanced user to use it.  For gaming maybe, but
playstations are so prolific. Many struggle to get it to do things
it's incapable of or whine that it lacks certain capabilities when it
really should. The average user is often happy with it, however, and
you can't really blame them when you *appreciate* what their needs
are.

> > So you're saying that EVERY Win9x user using IBM.NET, Erols, et al is
> > experiencing this behavior?
> >
> > I have news for you, they're not. It only appears to be you.
> >
> I don't know about everybody, but it sure is not only Bob.
>
> BTW, I don't get the same laziness with pppd/kppp.
>
> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
>
> |---------------------------------------------------|
> |            <undefined O/S> boot options           |
> |                                                   |
> |               Please choose from list             |
> |                                                   |
> |       <crash>         <OS/2>        <linux>       |
> |---------------------------------------------------|
>
> NT-vocates made trouble, so here's the first P. C. sig-line.

ROTFL. <sigh>

--
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
         <remove _nospam_>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                    20-Oct-99 17:17:13
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Gerben Bergman <[e-mail]>

Sorry, Hobbyist, you are not cleared for that information.

| > I not only can handle Windows, I am far too intelligent to be saddled with
a
| > taskswitching menu program on top of a 19 year old operating system.
|
| That's not a statement that demands respect from one who claims to be so
| intelligent.

Bob Germer is a prize, isn't he? One of the relics of OS/2 advocacy. Those
good old days... <sniff>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 15:46:07
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: [e-mail]

Marty writes:

>> I see you still didn't explain why you're suddenly reading that which
>> is supposedly being filtered out by your killfile.

> Relax, Mr. Tholen,

What makes you think I'm not already relaxed, Marty?

> My killfile is programmed to receive.

Your killfile is programmed to filter out my postings so that you won't
see them.  It's obviously not working as intended.

> You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.

Illogical.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 08:53:29
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: Old News!

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Mirage Media wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > This was reported last week and has nothing to do with OS/2.
>
> Gee you think so? My company supplies PC hardware to IBM. For the past 6
> months I've been pushing our directors to start OS/2 drivers with our
> products. Several weeks ago (during Warpstock Europa) we brought over an
> American developer to write drivers for a scanner we are going to
> market. Do you think the OS/2 community would have liked having a
> scanner with native OS/2 drivers all for under $175US??
>
> What do you think my directors are thinking now? But you're right....it
> has nothing to do with OS/2, does it?

Sorry, I didn't realize there was a link between retail-store Win98
Aptiva sales and native OS/2 scanner drivers.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                     20-Oct-99 18:04:21
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: Old News!

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>


"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Mirage Media wrote:
> >
> > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > >
> > > This was reported last week and has nothing to do with OS/2.
> >
> > Gee you think so? My company supplies PC hardware to IBM. For the past 6
> > months I've been pushing our directors to start OS/2 drivers with our
> > products. Several weeks ago (during Warpstock Europa) we brought over an
> > American developer to write drivers for a scanner we are going to
> > market. Do you think the OS/2 community would have liked having a
> > scanner with native OS/2 drivers all for under $175US??
> >
> > What do you think my directors are thinking now? But you're right....it
> > has nothing to do with OS/2, does it?
>
> Sorry, I didn't realize there was a link between retail-store Win98
> Aptiva sales and native OS/2 scanner drivers.

Think about it.....we sell hardware to IBM and make money....profits are
then used to pay employees, stockholders, do R&D and yes, fund OS/2
driver development. If one of our larger customers' orders disappear or
are reduced, what do you think is going to get cut?
Do you believe IBM is committed to the PC (retail or otherwise)? I have
my doubts and so our business plans will probably be made accordingly.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Internet Access Eindhoven, the Netherlands (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 16:01:06
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

>>>>>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>>>>>> Joseph wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer,
>>>>>>>>>>>> bummer.

>>>>>>>>>>> It's also bullshit.

>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2
>>>>>>>>>> functionality.

>>>>>>>>>>> Download something like NetBeans, that requires
>>>>>>>>>>> JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.

>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java
>>>>>>>>>> 1.1.8 implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does
>>>>>>>>>> implement SOME of it, however.

>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, your very own logic proves that he said
>>>>>>>>> exactly that (Re your argument from the "costly mistakes"
>>>>>>>>> thread of some years ago which you've conveniently forgotten
>>>>>>>>> here).

>>>>>>>> I've not forgotten anything here.  Ironically, you've forgotten
>>>>>>>> something, namely that my "very own logic" involved the usage
>>>>>>>> of "prevent", as in "prevent costly mistakes" or "prevent wild
>>>>>>>> fires", which you insisted was ambiguous.  The quotation above
>>>>>>>> does not involve anything analogous to "prevent", which is why
>>>>>>>> Timbol's interpretation is incorrect, and also why your "on the
>>>>>>>> contrary" is incorrect.

>>>>>>> Wrong.

>>>>>> Is that the best you can do?  If you really didn't forget about
>>>>>> "prevent", then why did you omit such a crucial piece of history?

>>>> Note:  no response.

>> Note:  still no response.

> My comments do not affect the inaccuracy of your argument.

What alleged comments?  You didn't make any comments in response to my
question.

What alleged inaccuracy of my argument?

>>>>>>> Go back and reread the thread to find out why.

>>>>>> Rereading the thread won't explain why you omitted the crucial
>>>>>> word "prevent" from your first response.

>>>>> It will reveal why your Java support statement is at odds with the
>>>>> argument you made 4 years ago in the "costly mistakes" thread

>>>> No, it won't.

>>> Yes, it will.

>> Impossible.

> Possible.

Feel free to demonstrate how, if you think you can, Lucien.

>>>> The reason is quite clear, as I already noted:  there
>>>> is nothing analogous to "prevent" in the quotation above.

>>> Wrong.

>> Feel free to identify the allegedly analogous word or words, if you
>> think you can, Lucien.

Note:  no response.

>>> Reread the thread,

>> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
>> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
>> recollection of the issue.

>>> it'll explain why your argument about the Java statement (as well
>>> as the argument below) is wrong.

>> Impossible.

> Possible.

Feel free to demonstrate how, if you think you can, Lucien.

> Hint: Your JDK statement supports my argument in the old thread and not
> yours.

Incorrect, given that the JDK statement (which is Joseph's, by the way,
and not mine, which is yet another example of your reading comprehension
problem) does not involve any word analogous to "prevent", whose
definition implies a number.

> Reread the thread to find out why.

Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
recollection of the issue.

> Quiz 2 grade: F

Note the complete absence of any supporting explanation yet again.
It figures.

>>>> Let's use an example.  Suppose an album cover says:
>>>>
>>>>    Encore!
>>>>    The New York Philharmonic
>>>>    performs works by
>>>>    Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss
>>>>
>>>> Now, are you going to expect the album to include performances of
>>>> the complete works by Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss?  You
>>>> shouldn't, because there's nothing in the definition of the word
>>>> "performs" to suggest such completeness.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality",
>>>> there is nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to
>>>> suggest that all such functionality was implemented.
>>>>
>>>> But when one writes "prevent costly mistakes", there is something
>>>> in the definition of "prevent" that does suggest all such mistakes.
>>>> As I noted the last time we had the discussion, the definition of
>>>> "prevent" includes "to keep from happening".
>>>>
>>>> You can toss around all the X bar syntax you want to obfuscate the
>>>> issue.  It won't do you any good when you ignore the definitions of
>>>> the words.

>> Note:  no response.  I'm not surprised.  Lucien doesn't have one (at
>> least he doesn't have a logical one).

Note:  still no response.

>>>>> (if you can follow your own argument therein, that is).

>>>> I can.  You obviously couldn't.  That's your problem, not mine.

>> Note:  no response.

Note:  still no response.

>>>>>> I suggest you reread the thread to find out why you were wrong
>>>>>> then (and now).  You apparently need to refresh your memory about
>>>>>> certain critical portions of the argument, like the meaning of
>>>>>> "prevent".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Only you can prevent forest fires."
>>>>>>    --Smokey Bear
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "That's ambiguous."
>>>>>>    --Lucien

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]               20-Oct-99 09:19:00
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On 20 Oct 1999 07:47:32 GMT, [e-mail] wrote:

>
>Richard Garrett Molpus? ([e-mail]?) wrote (Tue, 19 Oct 1999
04:31:18
>>At the last raffle session (6:30 PM approx), the room count
>>was at 125 - 150. I looked at the ticket roll after I made my
>
>
>                                                                    With
about
>                                                                    34
vendors
>
(bodies),
>                                                                      maybe
20
>
presenters
>                             Shh...                                     and
30
>
otherwise
>
involved,
>
that
>
leaves
>
about
>                                                                        83
who
>                                                                     came
just
>                                                                       for
the
>
thrill.
>
>Someone knows exactly how many attended -- no "I've got an eye for it"
needed.

That's bull shit.   Why don't you go get a life?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 09:15:02
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marty wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marty wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...And those who seek conspiracy under every rock and around
every corner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What would such motives be?  How could they benefit those who
hold them?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know but I think it's great that you're asking those kinds
of
> > > > > > questions.  People who blindly follow and never question are a
danger.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have yet to receive a satasfactory answer to either of these
questions
> > > > > from those who believe he did have an alterior motive.
> > > > >
> > > > It is impossible to provide the satisfactory answer you are asking for
> > > > since we do not have access to the required information.
> > >
> > > Thus making any claims of conspiracy unsubstantiated and unfounded.
> > >
> > The talk of conspiracy is yours, not mine.
>
> Actually, it was hinted at by the poster to whom I originally responded,
> not to mention several other persons historically.

Oh.  Well, a conspiracy is always possible but there are a lot of other
explanations that work as well or better.  There's the "incredible
miscommunication" theory wherein I described the imagined scene at the
cocktail lounge (my personal fav).  And there's the "Brad Wardell
whopper-ha,ha" theory.  And there's the "IBM right hand-left hand"
theory.  And the "looking for an excuse to bag OS/2" theory.  Or the
"Clueless but want to seem important" theory.  And so on.  All of these
come ahead of the "Wardell/Microsoft conspiracy" theory, IMO.  I don't
think that Wardell has the sand to pull off something like a conspiracy
with Microsoft.

But rather than speculate, just keep in mind the facts.  1) The IPMT
meeting at IBM did NOT happen as scheduled because of Hurricane Floyd,
unbeknownst to Brad.  2) IBM's Stephen King said that no decision by IBM
had been made before Wardell began his implosion.  3) Brad Wardell made
a public announcement that IBM had turned thumbs-down on the Warp Client
deal.  4) Brad Wardell has never revealed (to my knowledge) exactly who
or what at IBM told him that the Warp client deal with Stardock was
dead.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 16:08:13
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

>>>>>> Lucien writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:

>>>>>>> Feel free to reread the "costly mistakes" thread, if you're
>>>>>>> interested; it's still archived on USENET.

>>>>>> Indeed, complete with an explanation of why you're wrong, and
>>>>>> complete with your attempt to obfuscate the issue by tossing
>>>>>> around jargon.

>>>>>>> Of course, you'll be no more capable of understanding what was
>>>>>>> going on than Tholen was.

>>>>>> It's hard to be more capable of understanding what was going go
>>>>>> than I was, because I understood quite well what was going on,
>>>>>> including an

>>>>> Nope. You were lost the whole time.

>>>> Prove it, if you think you can.

>>> The proof is in the old thread.

>> Prove it, if you think you can.

Note:  no response.

>>> Reread it.

>> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are

> Translation: Tholen refuses to reread the thread, because the evidence
> it contains was a public embarrasment for him

Incorrect.  I said it was unnecessary because my memories of it are
still quite clear.  The public embarrassment is all yours, Lucien,
given your failure to realize that the definition of "prevent" implies
a number, thus the statement was not ambiguous.

> and his "costly mistakes" argument

I see you're once again leaving out the critical word "prevent".
You can't hide, Lucien.  You can run, however.

> and he doesn't want a repeat performance now.

On the contrary, I'm willing to embarrass you regarding that issue
whenever you want, Lucien.

> Typical.

Illogical, Lucien.

> Final grade: F

Note the complete absence of any supporting explanation yet again.
It figures.

Should your use of "final" be interpreted to mean that you intend to
discontinue your ridiculous game, Lucien?

>> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
>> recollection of the issue.

Note:  no response.

>>>>>> understanding of your attempts to obfuscate the issue by tossing
>>>>>> around jargon.

>>>>> Wrong. You're still lost.

>>>> Prove it, if you think you can.

>>> The proof is in the old thread.

>> Prove it, if you think you can.

Note:  no response.

>>> Reread it.

>> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
>> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
>> recollection of the issue.

Note:  no response.

>>>>>> The fact that you omitted the crucial word "prevent" from your
>>>>>> first recent response demonstrates either an intentional attempt
>>>>>> to

>>>>> Wrong.

>>>> How can you say that before one of the two possibilities even gets
>>>> mentioned?

>>> My statements don't affect the inaccuracy of your remarks.

>> What alleged inaccuracy?  And why didn't you answer the question?

Note:  no response.

>>>>>> deceive readers now, or that you did not understand what was
>>>>>> going on

>>>>> Still wrong.

>>>> Prove it, if you think you can.

>>> The proof is in the old thread.

>> Prove it, if you think you can.

Note:  no response.

>>> Reread it.

>> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
>> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
>> recollection of the issue.

Note:  no response.

>>>>>> back then, which would be rather ironic, considering the comment
>>>>>> you made above.

>>>>> Still wrong...

>>>> Prove it, if you think you can.

>>> The proof is in the old thread.

>> Prove it, if you think you can.

Note:  no response.

>>> Reread it.

>> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
>> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
>> recollection of the issue.

Note:  no response.

>>>>> Quiz grade: F.

>>>> Note the complete absence of any supporting explanation.  It
>>>> figures.

>>> The supporting explanation is in the old thread.

>> Prove it, if you think you can.

Note:  no response.

>>> Reread it.

>> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
>> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
>> recollection of the issue.

Note:  no response.

>>>> Same old Lucien.

>>> Quiz retake grade: F.

>> Note the complete absence of any supporting explanation.  It figures.

Note:  no response.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 16:15:00
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

>>> Curtis Bass wrote:

>>>> Ahh, the wonders of the Ambiguities of English . . .
>>>>
>>>> That's one problem with debate -- one has to choose words very
>>>> carefully.  To say that "X implements Y functionality" really
>>>> doesn't mean much, unless it's qualified. Does X implement *all*
>>>> of Y's funtionality, or only *some* of it?  Unfortunately, the
>>>> original quote can be correctly interpreted both ways, and
>>>> arguing that one interpretation is "more correct" than the other
>>>> is just as meaningless as the original quote itself.

>>> This is essentially a correct analysis.

>> Incorrect.

> No, it is correct.

Balderdash, Lucien.  I explained why it is incorrect.  Meanwhile, all
you did is pontificate that it is correct "essentially".

>> See my response to Curtis for why.

> Your response is wrong

Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.  Pontification won't get you
anywhere.

> and you lost the previous argument.

Incorrect, Lucien.  You lost the previous argument because you failed
to comprehend the definition of "prevent", which implies a number and
therefore eliminates the ambiguity that you claimed existed.

> The evidence is in the old thread.

Impossible.  What you will find in the old thread is evidence of why
you're wrong.

> Quiz 3 grade: F

I guess the "final" you used in your previous message doesn't mean
that you intend to discontinue your ridiculous game.  So, what does
it mean?

And once again, you failed to provide any sort of explanation for
your "grade".  Simple pontification.

>>> BTW, D. Tholen engaged in and lost an argument with me on this
>>> subject about 5 years ago

>> Incorrect again.  I did not lose any argument with you on that
>> subject.  You failed to comprehend the definition of "prevent",
>> which is why you lost that argument.

Note:  no response.

>>> - his pants are down again on this very same subject

>> Incorrect again, as I've clearly demonstrated in my responses to you.

Note:  no response.

>>> now with these JDK statements, unwittingly relying on the same
>>> fallacies he committed before.

>> Incorrect again.  First of all, there were no fallacies on my part
>> before, and there is no word analogous to "prevent" in the present
>> situation.

Note:  no response.

>>> Anyway, the old thread contains a detailed syntactic account for
>>> this particular alternation

>> And no evidence of comprehension of the definition of "prevent", which
>> is why you lost that argument.

Note:  no response.

>>> so you might be interested in reading it.

>> Indeed.

>>> It is still archived on USENET; do a search on "costly mistakes" in
>>> this newsgroup and it should come up (it may have been cross-posted
>>> to one or more of the Windows advocacy NG's as well).

>> I also encourage him to look up the definition of "prevent" in the
>> dictionary, something that you apparently failed to do.

Note:  no response.

>>>> Specifically, if one looks at the available facts, it's reasonable
>>>> to conclude that IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 does not implement *all*
>>>> of 1.2's functionality, but only *some* of it (assuming that it
>>>> implements *any* of it at all). If that wasn't the case (i.e., if
>>>> it implemented *all* of 1.2's funtionality), it stands to reason that
>>>> the JDK would have been *called* 1.2.

>> Interesting that you chose not to respond to this particular item,
>> which restates what I've been saying.

Note:  no response.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]               20-Oct-99 09:20:14
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta: Attendance

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 04:57:57 GMT, [e-mail] wrote:

>In article
><[e-mail]>,
>  "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> This is the era of the "SuperClient".
>
>Speaking of which, I missed your SuperClient presentation on Sunday! :(
>Do you have notes, slides, or a transcript from it available?
>

Sorry, short of having people signing a NDA, I only intended for people
attended the meeting to see the "leak"ed version.

If all works out, you will get to see it "soon".




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]               20-Oct-99 09:30:20
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:15:04 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:

>But rather than speculate, just keep in mind the facts.

>1) The IPMT
>meeting at IBM did NOT happen as scheduled because of Hurricane Floyd,
>unbeknownst to Brad.

Correct but it was irrelevant.

>2) IBM's Stephen King said that no decision by IBM
>had been made before Wardell began his implosion.

Correct.

>3) Brad Wardell made
>a public announcement that IBM had turned thumbs-down on the Warp Client
>deal.

It's correct but only "on the Stardock version of the new client".

>4) Brad Wardell has never revealed (to my knowledge) exactly who
>or what at IBM told him that the Warp client deal with Stardock was
>dead.

Irrelevant and would have made very poor business sense to do so.

I might not have agreed with Brad on the way he handled the aftermath but
everything he reported was accurate - from his point of view.    The trouble
is, of course, in business, it's not as simple as black and white, some
times.    So, his version is accurate, Steven King's version is accurate, IBM
spokesman's version is accurate.   Nobody lied.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 16:20:16
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

>>> Mike Timbol wrote:

>>>> I wrote:

>>>>> Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality",
>>>>> there is nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to
>>>>> suggest that all such functionality was implemented.

>>>> Except that there is.  If you claim to implement a standard, then
>>>> it is assumed that you implement the entire standard.  Any other
>>>> interpretation conveys no useful information.  The Integer class
>>>> is part of the Java 1.2 standard.  But you cannot claim that you
>>>> implement Java 1.2 functionality simply because you've implemented
>>>> the Integer class.

>>> BTW, it's interesting (and humorous) to note that Tholen's new
>>> argument here is based on the same fallacious reasoning he
>>> unknowingly employed in the "costly mistakes" thread.

>> What allegedly fallacious reasoning, Lucien?

> It's all in the old thread.

Your fallacious reasoning is all in the old thread, Lucien, not mine.

> Reread it, if you think you can follow it.

Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
recollection of the issue.

>> Meanwhile, I've pointed out your own fallacious reasoning, and you
>> had no response.

> Any response of mine will not affect the illogic of your argument.

What alleged illogic of my argument, Lucien?  If it's really illogical,
as you claim, then why haven't you responded to explain the alleged
illogic?  See the end of this article for evidence of your lack of a
response to the argument.

> Quiz grade 4: F

Still pontificating.  Still not providing any explanation for your
"grade".  It figures.

>> I'm referring to the definitions of "implements" and "performs",
>> which do not imply "all", and the definition of "prevent" which
>> does imply "all".

Note:  no response.

>>> Further proof that he never followed along....

>> How ironic, coming from the person who apparently didn't follow along,
>> based on the fact that you omitted "prevent" from your recent
>> recollection.
>>
>> You're obviously not following along this time either, given the way
>> you've failed to respond to the argument that if all the functionality
>> of Java 1.2 had been included in Java 1.1.8, then IBM would have
>> called it Java 1.2 rather than 1.1.8.

Note:  no response.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 09:49:20
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: Old News!

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Mirage Media wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Mirage Media wrote:
> > >
> > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This was reported last week and has nothing to do with OS/2.
> > >
> > > Gee you think so? My company supplies PC hardware to IBM. For the past 6
> > > months I've been pushing our directors to start OS/2 drivers with our
> > > products. Several weeks ago (during Warpstock Europa) we brought over an
> > > American developer to write drivers for a scanner we are going to
> > > market. Do you think the OS/2 community would have liked having a
> > > scanner with native OS/2 drivers all for under $175US??
> > >
> > > What do you think my directors are thinking now? But you're right....it
> > > has nothing to do with OS/2, does it?
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't realize there was a link between retail-store Win98
> > Aptiva sales and native OS/2 scanner drivers.
>
> Think about it.....we sell hardware to IBM and make money....profits are
> then used to pay employees, stockholders, do R&D and yes, fund OS/2
> driver development.

Maybe there should be a law that every software company spend 0.004% of
their profits on OS/2 driver development.


> If one of our larger customers' orders disappear or
> are reduced, what do you think is going to get cut?

Employee pay?  stockholder dividends?  R&D?  Okay, okay, I know the
answer...OS/2 driver development.


> Do you believe IBM is committed to the PC (retail or otherwise)? I have
> my doubts and so our business plans will probably be made accordingly.

Well, yes, I think IBM is committed to selling PCs.  They are just
trying to make some money doing it.  Who can blame them for that?  In
the last two years, they have lost their shirts selling the aptivas in
retail stores.  My own assessment of the problem is that IBM is selling
a fairly high-quality set of hardware while competing with a lot of guys
selling low-quality hardware.  I saw this myself recently when the power
supply on my new machine suddenly started smoking and quit with a
thunk.  Or look at IBM ThinkPads.  They are an outstanding high-quality
product but IBM has to compete with the quicko cheapo laptops that
everyone is putting out.  There is a market, of course, for high-quality
hardware but it is not in the few surviving retail outlets.  Retail
outlets were putting IBM Aptivas next to a cheaper competitor and using
the Aptivas to make the price look good on the Brand-X machine.  IBM was
being used and they have put an end to it.  Good for them.  IBM never
sold its Selectric typewriters at K-mart either.

People seem to think IBM owes the world the right to use IBM products to
market the low-priced competition.  Now, retailers will have to use
Compaq to fill this role.  I think Dell and Gateway have already bailed,
along with IBM.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]               20-Oct-99 16:23:28
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: A reminder, please listen for all our sakes

From: [e-mail] ()

On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:40:01 -0500, Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]>
wrote:
>Remember (or try to), Microsoft wants to ship a perfected software package
>FOR ONCE.  Can't you give them credit or must you urinate on everything they
>do?
>

Yawn.  That's EXACTLY what mickysoft said when releasing windoze95 and
gates had the gaul to publicly state that it didn't have a single bug.

Nobody has to urinate on mickysoft products unless urine covered crap is
what you want.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 10:04:16
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:27
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Kim Cheung wrote:
>
> I might not have agreed with Brad on the way he handled the aftermath but
> everything he reported was accurate - from his point of view.

Do you have some knowledge that this is the case or is this just your
opinion.  At the VERY LEAST, Wardell looks pretty eager to take "NO" for
an answer.

>   The trouble
> is, of course, in business, it's not as simple as black and white, some
> times.    So, his version is accurate, Steven King's version is accurate,
IBM
> spokesman's version is accurate.   Nobody lied.

Really?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            20-Oct-99 18:28:23
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:28
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:57:22, Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>
wrote:

> On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net posted :
>
> > I don't have any Windows 9x partitions on my PC, but I *did* use
> > win95's dialer to connect to IBM.net a couple of times. I noticed at
> > the time it took the dialer an unusually long amount of time to
> > establish a connect but, giving that this *was* win95 and I was
> > struggling big time, I didn't think much of it at the time.
>
> You're so credible. What is it that you were struggling so much with?
>
Look. I don't use Windows in any incarnation other than the - very
rare - WinOS/2 session (OK, I tell a lie: my old HP Omnibook 425 only
runs Win3.1, but that's just a note-taker for meetings ASO). It's just
that on one or two occasions I wanted to dial in to my ISP away from
home (that's the good thing about IBM.net, now attglobal.net: it's
everywhere) and I happened to have to use a Windows 95 machine.

This was in Poland, so I figured they didn't have any better and I
didn't complain about the sorry excuse for an O/S they were using
(probably relics from the Soviet occupation). At this time I noticed
it took the Windows dialer a very long time to actually connect, but
as I'm not familiar with Win95, I put it down to FUS (Funky User
Syndrome) and got along.

Bob now says it's apparently something that happens to others as well.

So what's your problem?

> ROTFL.
>
I'm happy to have brought some joy into your world, but I don't get
it.

> Most technical users find that the problem with win9x is that there's
> no substance to it and I agree. You just use the thing and spit it
> out. No good multitasking, robustness, stability, reliability or
> flexibility to tap on ..... nothing really. IMHO, there's no real
> reason for an advanced user to use it.  For gaming maybe, but
> playstations are so prolific. Many struggle to get it to do things
> it's incapable of or whine that it lacks certain capabilities when it
> really should. The average user is often happy with it, however, and
> you can't really blame them when you *appreciate* what their needs
> are.
>
Let me get this straight: are you now ranting about Windows 9x to me,
while I don't even use the thing?

I know it's the 30th anniversary of Monty Python, but even the Pythons
wouldn't get this one.



Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |
|                                                   |
|                                                   |
|                                                   |
|                                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------|

Special hyper-allergic version of the sig-line,
"Just for you", Ali.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]               20-Oct-99 11:44:04
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:28
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:04:33 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:

>
>
>Kim Cheung wrote:
>>
>> I might not have agreed with Brad on the way he handled the aftermath but
>> everything he reported was accurate - from his point of view.
>
>Do you have some knowledge that this is the case or is this just your
>opinion.

No, I don't speculate.   I HAVE direct knowledge.     Read my words
carefully: everything he reported was accurate - from his point of view.

>At the VERY LEAST, Wardell looks pretty eager to take "NO" for
>an answer.

That's incorrect.   Brad wanted the new client.

>
>>   The trouble
>> is, of course, in business, it's not as simple as black and white, some
>> times.    So, his version is accurate, Steven King's version is accurate,
IBM
>> spokesman's version is accurate.   Nobody lied.
>
>Really?

Yes.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  20-Oct-99 16:30:01
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something claiming to be a non-fallacious <[e-mail]> tholened:

> Your fallacious reasoning is all in the old thread, Lucien, not mine.

And yours is in every thread to which you, supposedly, "reply," Tholen.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  20-Oct-99 16:33:06
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 19:50:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Poor <[e-mail]> tholened:

> >> WATCOM FORTRAN 77 version 11.0a.  Supports SELECT syntax, DO/END DO
> >> syntax, and 132 character source lines, for example; not in FORTRAN 77,
> >> but they are in Fortran 90.

Poor Tholen, he doesn't realize that none of us will stand for his sham
"proof."  Hey, Tholen, if one of your numerous opponents offered something
like that for proof of something, *you* wouldn't accept it, now, would you?
Hypocrite.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 20-Oct-99 21:56:19
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 21:23:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7uk551$rha$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>>>> I am not wrong when I note that a FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
>>>>>>> Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.
>
>>>>>> Yes, Dave, you are.
>
>>>>> No I'm not, Mike.  Even the compiler vendor states that the compiler
>>>>> implements Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.
>
>>>> Evidence, please.
>
>>> WATCOM FORTRAN 77 version 11.0a.  Supports SELECT syntax, DO/END DO
>>> syntax, and 132 character source lines, for example; not in FORTRAN 77,
>>> but they are in Fortran 90.
>
>> That's not evidence of what the vendor stated, Dave.
>
>It's evidence that the compiler implements Fortran 90 functionality as
>extensions, Mike.  That's what you asked for.

No, it's not.  You said "Even the compiler vendor states that the
compiler implements Fortran 90 functionality as extensions."  I asked
for evidence that the compiler vendor stated that.  You've failed
to provide any.

>> Show me the quote where the compiler vendor states "implements
>> Fortran 90 functionality".  You can't.
>
>Nor do I need to, given that I didn't refer to any quotation.

You referred to what the compiler vendor stated, yet could not
produce any evidence that they actually stated what you claimed
they did.

>> What you presented instead is a list of features, then claimed it
>> means the same thing.  All you're doing is repeating your argument,
>> not supporting it with evidence.
>
>The Fortran 90 functionality I referred to is indeed evidence, Mike.

The features you refer to only represent a partial list of the
additional features of Fortran 90.  They do not prove your claim
that the compiler vendor considers their compiler as implementing
Fortran 90 functionality.  Thus, you are merely repeating your
argument, not supporting it.

>> Yet you claim the FORTRAN 77 compiler implements Fortran 90 functionality.
>
>The particular compiler I referred to does.  However, in my previous
>response, I was referring to a generic FORTRAN 77 compiler.  In
>something called a FORTRAN 77 compiler, one expects FORTRAN 77
>functionality, not Fortran 90 functionality.

Except if the vendor claims it had Fortran 90 functionality.  Then,
it makes sense for the users to expect that functionality.

>> Why, then, would one not expect Fortran 90 functionality from the
>> compiler in question?
>
>I wasn't referring to the compiler in question when I responded to your
>above remark, Mike.  I was referring to a generic FORTRAN 77 compiler.
>The reference to "FORTRAN 77" makes it clear that one should not expect
>Fortran 90 functionality.  The specific compiler I referred to does claim
>to offer Fortran 90 functionality, however, while still calling itself a
>FORTRAN 77 compiler, which means that one should expect some, but not all,
>Fortran 90 features.

No, Dave, it is you who consider offering some Fortran 90 features as
"offering Fortran 90 functionality".  You could produce no statement from
the compiler vendor that they share your viewpoint.  Thus, this whole
sidetrack about Fortran does nothing to help your case -- it's merely
a diversion.

>>>>>> Yes, he would.  But that conclusion would be wrong because the
>>>>>> statement is wrong.
>
>>>>> Incorrect, given that the statement is not wrong.  The statement is
>>>>> merely misinterpreted by people like you, who don't understand the
>>>>> language properly.
>
>>>> No, the statement is wrong.  If "Fortran 90 functionality" is
>>>> promised, then one expects functionality equivalent to Fortran 90.
>
>>> Illogical. If one expects functionality equivalent to Fortran 90, then
>>> the compiler would have been called a Fortran 90 compiler, Mike.  It
>>> wasn't.  That alone should tell you something.  Why do you think IBM is
>>> calling their JDK 1.1.8 rather than 1.2?
>
>> Because it doesn't support the functionality of JDK 1.2,
>
>It does support some of it, Mike.

It supports *some* of it.  Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2.  It
doesn't have JDK 1.2 functionality, though.  Only some of it.

>> which is the point.
>
>The point is that it's perfectly correct to state that JDK 1.1.8
>implements JDK 1.2 functionality, because it does, Mike.  Nobody
>should logically expect it to implement all of the 1.2 functionality,
>because otherwise IBM would have called it 1.2.  IBM did not.  There's
>a reason for that, and if you were capable of comprehending that
>reason, then you couldn't logically conclude that "implements 1.2
>functionality" means "all" rather than "some" of the functionality.

You're changing your argument.  You're now saying that the important
phrase isn't "implements JDK 1.2 functionality", the important phrase
is "JDK 1.1.8".

If you say "Product X implements JDK 1.2 functionality", would not
a reasonable person conclude that Product X actually does have
functionality equivalent to JDK 1.2?  Yes, they would.  If you
then say that they shouldn't conclude that because of the name of
Product X, then you're making a contradictory statement: Product
X implements JDK 1.2 functionality, except that it doesn't.

>> Glad you agree.
>
>I haven't agreed with your point, Mike.

Yes, you have.  JDK 1.1.8 doesn't support the functionality of
JDK 1.2

In the original post, Joseph brought up two versions on Netscape,
where one of them could display everything the higher level version
could.  In this case, you could argue that both versions had
equivalent functionality.

He also claimed that JDK 1.1.8 supported the functionality of JDK 1.2.
Do the two versions provide equivalent functionality?  Can one run
everything the second one could?  Are they even close?  Not in the
least.  That's my point.

You, of course, take the position that if JDK 1.1.8 implements even
a single feature of JDK 1.2, you can claim it "implements JDK 1.2
functionality".  A semantic argument.  Interestingly, you cannot
name even a single thing which qualifies.


>>>>>> Which features are you referring to?
>
>>>>> The features from Java 1.2 that IBM chose to implement in Java 1.1.8,
>>>>> Mike.
>
>>>> Which features would those be?
>
>>> Java 2 security classes,
>
>> Wrong.  IBM did not implement Java 2 security classes in Java 1.1.8.
>
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>Mike.

Can't find that article with deja.com, Dave.  Repost it if you want
to refer to it.

In any case, what some article on usenet refers to is irrelevent.  The
facts are relevent.  IBM did not implement Java 2 security classes in
JDK 1.1.8.

>> The extra security classes that they include in the Java 1.1.8 JDK are
>> not included in Java 1.2.
>
>IBM refers to them as Java 2 security classes, Mike.

Irrelevent.  IBM also refers to OS/2 as "the premiere platform for
Java development".  What IBM claims does not override the facts.

>> In fact, they are not allowed to do what you claim; licensees are
>> barred from adding classes into the namespace of the the core JDK
>> packages.
>
>Then why does Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]>
>indicate otherwise, Mike?

What the article indicates to you and what the article actually says
are vastly different things.

The security classes that IBM *added* are in the com.ibm.* packages.
The security classes that are part of Java 2 are in the java.security.*
packages.  They are not the same classes.

>>> Remote Method Invocation over IIOP,
>
>> Wrong.  RMI over IIOP is not a Java 2 feature; it is a standard
>> extension.
>
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates
>otherwise, Mike.

Sun's web site indicates the truth.  You deleted that excerpt.

>> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.
>
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>Mike.

Download the JDK from IBM's web site, Dave.  The classes aren't in it.

>>> the COMM API,
>
>> Wrong.  The Communications API is also not a part of Java 2.
>
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates otherwise,
>Mike.

Sun's web site indicates the truth.  You deleted that excerpt.

>> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK
>
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>Mike.

Download the JDK from IBM's web site, Dave.  The classes aren't in it.

>>> and Swing, for example.
>
>> Swing was introduced before Java 2.
>
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates otherwise,
>Mike.

Then it's wrong.  More likely, your interpretation is wrong.

>> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.
>
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>Mike.

Download the JDK from IBM's web site, Dave.  The classes aren't in it.

>> Sorry, you're 0 for 4.
>
>Incorrect, Mike.

I'm quite correct, Dave.  I included references to official Sun web
sites, and quotes backing up my positions.  You had no response to
those quotes.

>Did you bother to even read the evidence I pointed you to?

Couldn't find it with deja.com, Dave.  If you want to refer to items
listed in that article, repost them here.

>> It's say "nice try", but that was pretty pathetic.
>
>Your so-called "logic" is pretty pathetic, Mike.

My logic is backed up by facts and reality.  Your claims are incorrect.


>>>> You are, once again, arguing from a position of arrogant ignorance.
>
>>> On the contrary, I am, once again, arguing from a position of knowledge
>>> and logic.
>
>> Then why are all of your answers wrong?
>
>On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

The basis of knowing the facts.  That's why I included excerpts that
proved my points.  And that's why you deleted those excerpts.

     - Mike



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 20-Oct-99 22:14:18
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 21:23:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7uk3bj$rha$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>> Then see everyone laugh in your face, just like they're doing now.
>
>>> Who's laughing, Mike, excluding the ones laughing at you?
>
>> Anyone who understands anything about Java.
>
>Would that include IBM, Mike?

Yes, Dave, it would.

>> You're not included, which is why you don't realize it.
>
>I realize what IBM wrote, Mike, and I'll take IBM's word over yours
>any day.

That's why you believe that OS/2 is "a better Windows than Windows"
and that OS/2 is "the premiere platform for Java development".  Maybe
one day you'll be able to realize that reality is more proof than
what a company writes.

I'll take IBM's word over your any day, and all I've seen from you
is your interpretation of what IBM wrote.


>>>> You just want to talk about a different subject, because you, as
>>>> usual, jumped into an argument about a subject which you are
>>>> ignorant of.
>
>>> Incorrect, given that I haven't jumped into any argument about a subject
>>> with which I'm ignorant.
>
>> Then why did you claim that JDK 1.1.8 implements Java 2 security classes
>> when it does not?
>
>Prove that it does not, Mike.  I've provided a reference to my evidence.
>All you've done is pontificate, as usual.

IBM's additional security classes are in com.ibm.* packages.  Those
packages are not in JDK 1.2.  The classes IBM added are not Java 2
security classes, they are proprietary classes from by IBM.  If you
refer to those classes from your program, your program will fail
on a reference implementation of Java 2.

My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.

>> Then why did you claim Swing is part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8
>> when it is not?
>
>Prove that it does not, Mike.  I've provided a reference to my evidence.
>All you've done is pontificate, as usual.

My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.  The Swing
classes are not included.  You can download them separately, just as
you can download them separately for the reference 1.1.x JDKs.

>> Why are you claiming Swing is "Java 1.2 functionality" when you earlier
>> claimed that only features introduced with Java 1.2 qualify?
>
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]>

Irrelevent.  Swing was introduced before Java 1.2.

>> Because you are ignorant of the subject at hand.  As usual.
>
>How ironic, coming from the person who is ignorant of:
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]>

No irony involved, Dave, since that article is not the subject
at hand.  As I mentioned, I couldn't find the message you indicate.
Repost it, if you wish to refer to it.

In any case, I'll just note that I've referred to the actual contents
of the JDK in question, and have provided, as evidence, references to
and quotes from Sun's official web site.

You, on the other hand, present a reference to a newsgroup
article, and arguments about Fortran and music composers.

That says a lot for the quality of our respective arguments.

     - Mike


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 15:11:05
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 21:23:24
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Kim Cheung wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:04:33 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Kim Cheung wrote:
> >>
> >> I might not have agreed with Brad on the way he handled the aftermath but
> >> everything he reported was accurate - from his point of view.
> >
> >Do you have some knowledge that this is the case or is this just your
> >opinion.
>
> No, I don't speculate.   I HAVE direct knowledge.     Read my words
> carefully: everything he reported was accurate - from his point of view.

Would you care to share your direct knowledge or is it...confidential?

>
> >At the VERY LEAST, Wardell looks pretty eager to take "NO" for
> >an answer.
>
> That's incorrect.   Brad wanted the new client.

Well, perhaps he did.  But his actions do not support this.  He puts a
statement out on the Stardock news server, which has
the *tone of finality* to it, in which he says:

"The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock and
IBM
has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their
own."

Now, remember, Brad has built up this IPMT meeting stuff with posts to
his news server in the days preceeding it. The meeting was going to be
the *answer* from IBM.  This was going to be the official word.  Etc.
Etc.  Here's what Brad said in the days leading up to the meeting:

9/13/99:  "On September 16th, IBM executives will be meeting for the
monthly IPMT
meeting.  At this meeting they are supposed to talk about the future of
the
OS/2 client and the feasibility of a client published by a third party."

9/14/99:  "...The IPMT meeting is the final hurdle...2 days until the
IPMT meeting..."

9/15/99:  "Basically where we're at right now is that the OS/2 part of
IBM has
essentially approved the plan.  Now it's up to the rest of IBM to weigh
in."

9/17/99:  "The call has been made...(etc.)"

 Then it turns out that this big IPMT meeting was cancelled due to
Hurricane Floyd.  But the next day, Brad still posted the IBM decision
that he says was made.  Was Brad really that misinformed about the
process?

Now, in my opinion, any normal businessman would call up IBM and say
something like 'Was there something in our proposal you object to?...Is
it our company?  Is it the terms?'  And so on.  Asked for more
meetings.  More negotiations.  Asked for reconsideration, if possible.
Certainly make an
effort to find out if there is any possible way a deal could happen.  If
the deal was worth doing in the first place, it is certainly worth this
kind of effort.  But...suppose IBM says NO, NO, and double-NO.  If you
REALLY want the deal, you bide your time and wait.  Maybe they'll change
their mind next year or the
year after when market conditions change.  What do you have to lose?
For that matter, what did Brad have to gain with his too-quick post
about the "the call" being made?

Another remarkable thing is Serenity System's suggestion that THEY are
negotiating with IBM for a client deal.  Now, if IBM did not like the
idea at
all, why should they even talk to ANOTHER company about the same thing?
This only makes sense if they are willing to consider a Warp Client
licensing deal but, for some reason, not with Stardock.  Again, in this
case, if I were Brad Wardell I would have worked to find out what the
specific objection to Stardock's proposal was by IBM and worked to
mitigate these concerns.

And finally, many people have claimed that Microsoft owns large parts of
the OS/2 product and that IBM licenses the use of it from Microsoft.
This is the reason, they claim, that IBM cannot open source OS/2.  *IF*
this is the case, certainly IBM would also need to negotiate with
Microsoft for the rights to license the use of Microsoft property to
Stardock or whoever.  Somehow, I don't see Microsoft EVER agreeing to
anything like this.  Microsoft is a company that fights over what will
be on the opening screen of Windows.
>
> >
> >>   The trouble
> >> is, of course, in business, it's not as simple as black and white, some
> >> times.    So, his version is accurate, Steven King's version is accurate,
IBM
> >> spokesman's version is accurate.   Nobody lied.
> >
> >Really?
>
> Yes.

So you are saying that "the call" really was made?  Maybe it was a phone
call for takeout pizza?   Certainly Brad was truthful when he said
"there will be no new client from Stardock..."  After all, this might be
his decision and he should know.  As far as the stuff about '...IBM has
indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their
own', Brad clarified that in an interview on 9/30/99 when he said:

"IBM has never stated that they will never do another new version of
OS/2 nor would I expect
them to."

So you are right, no one lied.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                              20-Oct-99 23:42:26
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 21:23:24
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: mlw <[e-mail]>

Chad Myers wrote:
>
> heh.. Pretty good, well formed =)
>
> One of the best parody news items I've seen.
>
> However, I didn't get the joke, was it
> supposed to be funny? It seemed pretty
> realistic in most facets except for the bogus
> names and such.
>
> What'd I miss?

The frightening fact that it is true.

>
> Chad
>
> Eric Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> >
> >
> > SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget
> > EBNet Newswire
> >
> >
> > Boston, MA.  October 20, 1999.  The Software Pirates of America (SPA)
> > today announced a new lobbying campaign aimed at reducing the year 2000
> > budgets for the Department of Justice and the U.S. Copyright Office.
>
> >    "We believe that the Justice Department has handled enforcement of the
> > copyright laws in an inappropriate manner", said SPA President R. Edward
> > Baird, "and therefore it is appropriate for Congress to reduce the
> > agency's funding."  Baird cited industry statistics showing that the
> > activities of his organization have lowered costs to consumers and
> > businesses around the world by hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
> > "Many people who are prosecuted for violating copyright laws are
> > actually protected under the 'fair use' clause", claimed Baird.  "These
> > inappropriate and wayward prosecutions must be stopped."
> >
> >    Industry analysts applauded the move.  Lem Ing of the Gardener Group
> > noted that the move shows an increasing trend in the technology industry
> > of groups being willing to challenge government waste.  "As usual,
> > credit for this innovation should go to Microsoft," said Ing, "given the
> > recent disclosure that Microsoft is lobbying against blatant waste in
> > the DOJ's antitrust division.  And given that a prominent Republican has
> > labeled the antitrust division as one of the most efficient units in the
> > government, Microsoft's action clearly shows that even relatively
> > efficient government agencies are still very wasteful.  We thus expect a
> > flood of actions similar to the action disclosed today by the SPA, all
> > aimed at at reducing overactive law enforcement activities."
> >
> >    Bo Guss, an analysts with Datajest, concurred with Baird's analysis,
> > noting that "government prosecutions in this area clearly result in
> > higher costs to large numbers of consumers and corporations."
> >
> >    Microsoft spokesman Tom Pilla blasted the group's efforts as
> > constituting a "blatant disregard for the law", but Baird insists that
> > his group's actions are ethical.  "Like Microsoft, we are simply
> > exercising our rights to speak freely and to petition the government for
> > a redress of grievances," he said.
> >
> >    There have also been reports that, due to the number of privately filed
> > copyright suits, the SPA is considering lobbying for cuts in court
> > funding for district courts that have not shown sympathy to SPA members.
> > SPA officials refused to comment on these reports.
> >
> >
> >
> > For more breaking news from EBNet Newswire, please visit our web site:
> > http://128.253.200.125/news/
> >
> > --
> > EBNet Newswire, Inc.

--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          20-Oct-99 17:44:24
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 21:23:24
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net posted :

> > You're so credible. What is it that you were struggling so much with?
> >
> Look. I don't use Windows in any incarnation other than the - very
> rare - WinOS/2 session (OK, I tell a lie: my old HP Omnibook 425 only
> runs Win3.1, but that's just a note-taker for meetings ASO).

So why are your feelings about it so seemingly negative? On what basis
do you feel this way? Jealousy I guess. An overall feeling of OS/2
injustice?

> It's just that on one or two occasions I wanted to dial in to my ISP
> away from home (that's the good thing about IBM.net, now
> attglobal.net: it's everywhere) and I happened to have to use a
> Windows 95 machine.
>
> This was in Poland, so I figured they didn't have any better and I
> didn't complain about the sorry excuse for an O/S they were using
> (probably relics from the Soviet occupation). At this time I noticed
> it took the Windows dialer a very long time to actually connect, but
> as I'm not familiar with Win95, I put it down to FUS (Funky User
> Syndrome) and got along.

Typical. It's called having a seriously biased mindset.

Look at what you said:

  "I noticed at the time it took the dialler an unusually long amount
time to establish a connect but, giving that this *was* win95 and I
was struggling big time, I didn't think much of it at the time."

What a remark to make considering that you don't use win95. It's
supposed to be an OS that people struggle with. Your implication there
is what I found amusing.

What exactly was the struggle? Hitting the connect button and waiting?

> Bob now says it's apparently something that happens to others as well.
>
> So what's your problem?

What's yours?

> > Most technical users find that the problem with win9x is that there's
> > no substance to it and I agree. You just use the thing and spit it
> > out. No good multitasking, robustness, stability, reliability or
> > flexibility to tap on ..... nothing really. IMHO, there's no real
> > reason for an advanced user to use it.  For gaming maybe, but
> > playstations are so prolific. Many struggle to get it to do things
> > it's incapable of or whine that it lacks certain capabilities when it
> > really should. The average user is often happy with it, however, and
> > you can't really blame them when you *appreciate* what their needs
> > are.
> >
> Let me get this straight: are you now ranting about Windows 9x to me,
> while I don't even use the thing?

You seem to require a little first hand educating where it's
concerned. You made your comment to get some antiwin9x points eh? In
the spirit of COOA right? Even though you don't use the OS based on
your 'struggle' to connect to an ISP and not knowing the real reason
behind the struggle right? This is the type of thing I hate the most,
people who have a fleeting experience with windows that was negative
and then make a comment to the effect, 'hey, what do you expect, it's
just windows.' I'm just tired of that kindergarten type commentary.

If I'd had that approach I wouldn't have ended up using OS/2 for 2
yrs. I was having stability problems with OS/2 initially which made it
far more unstable than win9x. I persevered and fixed the problem.

I would never have been using NT and enjoying it's benefits now if I
had your approach. You seem to have deeply entrenched anti-Windows
opinions which are largely based on hearsay. Do you use either NT or
win98 to any reasonable extent to have a working opinion to make your
trolling statement worthwhile?

> I know it's the 30th anniversary of Monty Python, but even the Pythons
> wouldn't get this one.

I think they would.
>
>
> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
>
> |---------------------------------------------------|
> |                                                   |
> |                                                   |
> |                                                   |
> |                                                   |
> |                                                   |
> |---------------------------------------------------|
>
> Special hyper-allergic version of the sig-line,
> "Just for you", Ali.

That's much better. Far more intelligent. :)
The previous signature does your credibility serious damage.

--
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
         <remove _nospam_>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 22:58:12
  To: All                                               20-Oct-99 21:23:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7ukp09$f51$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Joseph wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.
Bummer,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bummer.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It's also bullshit.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2
> >>>>>>>>>> functionality.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Download something like NetBeans, that requires
> >>>>>>>>>>> JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java
> >>>>>>>>>> 1.1.8 implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does
> >>>>>>>>>> implement SOME of it, however.
>
> >>>>>>>>> On the contrary, your very own logic proves that he said
> >>>>>>>>> exactly that (Re your argument from the "costly mistakes"
> >>>>>>>>> thread of some years ago which you've conveniently forgotten
> >>>>>>>>> here).
>
> >>>>>>>> I've not forgotten anything here.  Ironically, you've
forgotten
> >>>>>>>> something, namely that my "very own logic" involved the usage
> >>>>>>>> of "prevent", as in "prevent costly mistakes" or "prevent
wild
> >>>>>>>> fires", which you insisted was ambiguous.  The quotation
above
> >>>>>>>> does not involve anything analogous to "prevent", which is
why
> >>>>>>>> Timbol's interpretation is incorrect, and also why your "on
the
> >>>>>>>> contrary" is incorrect.
>
> >>>>>>> Wrong.
>
> >>>>>> Is that the best you can do?  If you really didn't forget about
> >>>>>> "prevent", then why did you omit such a crucial piece of
history?
>
> >>>> Note:  no response.
>
> >> Note:  still no response.
>
> > My comments do not affect the inaccuracy of your argument.
>
> What alleged comments?  You didn't make any comments in response to my
> question.
>
> What alleged inaccuracy of my argument?
>
> >>>>>>> Go back and reread the thread to find out why.
>
> >>>>>> Rereading the thread won't explain why you omitted the crucial
> >>>>>> word "prevent" from your first response.
>
> >>>>> It will reveal why your Java support statement is at odds with
the
> >>>>> argument you made 4 years ago in the "costly mistakes" thread
>
> >>>> No, it won't.
>
> >>> Yes, it will.
>
> >> Impossible.
>
> > Possible.
>
> Feel free to demonstrate how, if you think you can, Lucien.
>
> >>>> The reason is quite clear, as I already noted:  there
> >>>> is nothing analogous to "prevent" in the quotation above.
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> Feel free to identify the allegedly analogous word or words, if you
> >> think you can, Lucien.
>
> Note:  no response.
>
> >>> Reread the thread,
>
> >> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
> >> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
> >> recollection of the issue.
>
> >>> it'll explain why your argument about the Java statement (as well
> >>> as the argument below) is wrong.
>
> >> Impossible.
>
> > Possible.
>
> Feel free to demonstrate how, if you think you can, Lucien.
>
> > Hint: Your JDK statement supports my argument in the old thread and
not
> > yours.
>
> Incorrect, given that the JDK statement (which is Joseph's, by the
way,
> and not mine, which is yet another example of your reading
comprehension
> problem) does not involve any word analogous to "prevent", whose
> definition implies a number.

Wrong.
It is analogous - further proof you were lost for the duration of the
"costly mistakes" thread.

Final course grade: F

Lucien S.

> > Reread the thread to find out why.
>
> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.

  Yours are
> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
> recollection of the issue.
>
> > Quiz 2 grade: F
>
> Note the complete absence of any supporting explanation yet again.
> It figures.
>
> >>>> Let's use an example.  Suppose an album cover says:
> >>>>
> >>>>    Encore!
> >>>>    The New York Philharmonic
> >>>>    performs works by
> >>>>    Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, are you going to expect the album to include performances of
> >>>> the complete works by Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss?  You
> >>>> shouldn't, because there's nothing in the definition of the word
> >>>> "performs" to suggest such completeness.
> >>>>
> >>>> Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality",
> >>>> there is nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to
> >>>> suggest that all such functionality was implemented.
> >>>>
> >>>> But when one writes "prevent costly mistakes", there is something
> >>>> in the definition of "prevent" that does suggest all such
mistakes.
> >>>> As I noted the last time we had the discussion, the definition of
> >>>> "prevent" includes "to keep from happening".
> >>>>
> >>>> You can toss around all the X bar syntax you want to obfuscate
the
> >>>> issue.  It won't do you any good when you ignore the definitions
of
> >>>> the words.
>
> >> Note:  no response.  I'm not surprised.  Lucien doesn't have one
(at
> >> least he doesn't have a logical one).
>
> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>>> (if you can follow your own argument therein, that is).
>
> >>>> I can.  You obviously couldn't.  That's your problem, not mine.
>
> >> Note:  no response.
>
> Note:  still no response.
>
> >>>>>> I suggest you reread the thread to find out why you were wrong
> >>>>>> then (and now).  You apparently need to refresh your memory
about
> >>>>>> certain critical portions of the argument, like the meaning of
> >>>>>> "prevent".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Only you can prevent forest fires."
> >>>>>>    --Smokey Bear
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "That's ambiguous."
> >>>>>>    --Lucien
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 13:48:23
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]>

"Bob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380c9ca3$2$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <93_O3.2838$[e-mail]>, on 10/19/99 at 01:08
> PM,
>    "Chad Myers" <[e-mail]> said:
>
>
> > > 1. It takes the MS dialer 1 minute 4 seconds to connect to my
> > > ISP or 9 others I have tested with using Win 9x. It takes less
> > > than 8 seconds using OS/2, DOS, or Win 3.1 This has been confirmed
> > > by four of the ISP's as a chronic problem with Win 9x.
>
> > Wow, that's funny, because I've used Win3.1 (with Trumpet), Win95,
> > Win98, and NT 4.0 to connect to about 30 different ISPs in my career and
> > I have never once experienced what you're talking about.
>
> Well, third party dialers connect virtually instantly. Only Win98 Second
> Edition seems to have fixed this bug which undoubtedly lies somewhere in
> the grotesquely overbloated IE code segments.
>
> > It sounds more like your ISPs equipment is faulty, or you don't have
> > Win9x or the modem configured properly.  I have seen Modems duke it out
> > to reach X2, K56Flex, and/or v.90 and they spend minutes like you say
> > trying to reach a compatible protocol.
>
> Not at all. The same behavior occurred with IBM.NET, Cyberenet, Bell
> Atlantic Net, Erols, and three or four local ISP's including Pics.
> Moreover, the owner of PICS is an extremely talented programmer who makes
> his primary living writing custom applications for mainframes, midrange,
> and PC operating systems. He searched long and hard for the reason before
> dropping IE as the default browser and going with Netscape and a custom
> dialer he wrote.
>
> > You should try disabling all but V.90, or K56flex. Hell, try it at 28.8
> > and see what happens. If it's fast, then you know it's your modem, their
> > modem or the phone line.
>
> All possible testing has been done including testing by the local telco.
> The problem is a bug in Win 9x.

Given that it works for most of the other WIn9x PC's around the world
doesn't sound like a bug to me.  FWIW, I had problems with my parents WIn98
PC doing something similar until I disabled the PPTP adapter.

>
> > > 2. Win 95 and 98 both fail to properly recognize or set up the IDE
> > > Busmastering of Tyan motherboards when a PNP NIC is also in the
> > > system.
>
> > Sounds like Tyan's busmastering drivers, not Win9x.  I have a tyan MOBO
> > and NT/2K and a PNP NIC and busmastering is working.
>
> Funny, but OS/2, Linux, and PC-DOS do not have this problem. It is a bug
> in Windows 9x.

So his works, yours doesn't and it's a bug?


>
> > > 3. Win 95 and 98 both fail to heed the setting in Hardware
> > > Manager to remove my Wangtek SCSI tape drive from the profile and
> > > consistently place it back with a Bang.
>
> > Ah... this is user failure.  It's auto-detecting the hardware again. You
> > either need to disable it, or load the proper drivers,
> > otherwise, Win9x will keep detecting it incorrectly and loading the
> > wrong driver.
>
> No it is not a user failure. I only run MS's Crap excuse for a menu
> program for testing. I do not wish to fork over money for a backup program
> and drivers for a device which will never see use under the Mickey Mouse
> menu program. It has an option to remove the device from this profile and
> refuses to do so. This is a bug.

What do you mean refuses?  It should just disable the device, but it won't
remove the driver.

>
> > No, again... there go the conspiracy whackos...
> > The reason for this is that most corporations use DUN to connect to
> > corporate NT networks for RAS.  In this case, MSCHAP is the best
> > protocol. It it VERY easy to switch to PAP or something else and many
> > ISPs have walk throughs or scripts that set this up automatically.
>
> In point of fact, most Windows 9x users are NOT on a network. Therefore,
> MS has introduced needless overhead, aka a serious bug, to the software.
> People on networks either have knowledge or technical support in house.
> Individual users lack both.

That my friend is not a bug.  It is working as designed - not a bug.




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Customer of Telecom Internet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      21-Oct-99 00:48:21
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: A reminder, please listen for all our sakes

From: [e-mail]

In article <7uj309$[e-mail]>,
  "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am getting so fed up with you people.

I'm so sorry our pissing and moaning is bothering you. May I humbly
suggest that you stop reading c.o.o.a?

--
-Steven Hunter               *OS/2 Warp 4 * |
[e-mail] *AMD K6-2 400* |


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               20-Oct-99 21:30:03
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

In case you folks are missing it, Dave has just pointed out the illogic
in the lyrics of 4 different songs.  One wonders if he prefers
communicating in FORTRAN rather than English.

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >> I see you still didn't explain why you're suddenly reading that which
> >> is supposedly being filtered out by your killfile.
>
> > Relax, Mr. Tholen,
>
> What makes you think I'm not already relaxed, Marty?

Hmm... where to begin...
1] your inability to demonstrate that you have a sense of humor
2] your inability to demonstrate that you have personality
3] your inability to see humor or levity in any comments or situations
presented by others
4] your need to sift the following types of comments through your
pseudo-logical overly literal parser:
    a] jokes
    b] tongue-in-cheek comments
    c] parodies
    d] analogies and metaphors
    e] OS commentaries
    f] basketball commentaries
    g] discussions about automobiles
    h] insults
    i] song lyrics
5] your need to cling to discussions that are several years old
6] your need to respond directly to those who have no interest in what
you have to say
7] your need to ask, "What makes you think I'm not already relaxed,
Marty?"
and finally 8] I saw the GIF picture of you presented during the
"wedgie" discussion

That is my basis for thinking you are not relaxed.

> > My killfile is programmed to receive.
>
> Your killfile is programmed to filter out my postings so that you won't
> see them.  It's obviously not working as intended.

Prove it, if you think you can.  How do you know what my killfile does?

> > You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.
>
> Illogical.

Incorrect.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         21-Oct-99 01:33:11
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> In case you folks are missing it, Dave has just pointed out the illogic
> in the lyrics of 4 different songs.

Incorrect, Marty.  Rather, I pointed out the illogic of your usage of
those lyrics as responses to me.  I said nothing about the lyrics
themselves.  Of course, it takes decent reading comprehension skills
to realize that.

> One wonders if he prefers communicating in FORTRAN rather than English.

One wonders whether it would make any difference with you.

>>>> I see you still didn't explain why you're suddenly reading that which
>>>> is supposedly being filtered out by your killfile.

>>> Relax, Mr. Tholen,

>> What makes you think I'm not already relaxed, Marty?

> Hmm... where to begin...
> 1] your inability to demonstrate that you have a sense of humor

A lie.

> 2] your inability to demonstrate that you have personality

Another lie.

> 3] your inability to see humor or levity in any comments or situations
> presented by others

Another lie.

> 4] your need to sift the following types of comments through your
> pseudo-logical overly literal parser:
>    a] jokes
>    b] tongue-in-cheek comments
>    c] parodies
>    d] analogies and metaphors
>    e] OS commentaries
>    f] basketball commentaries
>    g] discussions about automobiles
>    h] insults
>    i] song lyrics

Another lie.

> 5] your need to cling to discussions that are several years old

Another lie.

> 6] your need to respond directly to those who have no interest in what
> you have to say

Another lie, but rather interesting, considering the obvious failure
of your alleged killfile.

> 7] your need to ask, "What makes you think I'm not already relaxed,
> Marty?"

Illogical, given that I didn't "need to" ask that.

> and finally 8] I saw the GIF picture of you presented during the
> "wedgie" discussion

How does that support your conclusion that I'm not relaxed, Marty?

> That is my basis for thinking you are not relaxed.

Not much of a basis:  six lies, and two illogical remarks.

>>> My killfile is programmed to receive.

>> Your killfile is programmed to filter out my postings so that you won't
>> see them.  It's obviously not working as intended.

> Prove it, if you think you can.

Witness your responses to me, Marty.

> How do you know what my killfile does?

I know what your killfile is *not* doing.  What you *wanted* it to do
was made clear in your recent posting that complained about the typo
in my address.  How ironic that you complained about "drivel", yet
here you are posting drivel.

>>> You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.

>> Illogical.

> Incorrect.

Feel free to explain why, if you think you can, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         21-Oct-99 01:43:02
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joseph wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bummer, bummer.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's also bullshit.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2
>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Download something like NetBeans, that requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1.8 implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does
>>>>>>>>>>>> implement SOME of it, however.

>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, your very own logic proves that he said
>>>>>>>>>>> exactly that (Re your argument from the "costly mistakes"
>>>>>>>>>>> thread of some years ago which you've conveniently forgotten
>>>>>>>>>>> here).

>>>>>>>>>> I've not forgotten anything here.  Ironically, you've
>>>>>>>>>> forgotten something, namely that my "very own logic" involved
>>>>>>>>>> the usage of "prevent", as in "prevent costly mistakes" or
>>>>>>>>>> "prevent wild fires", which you insisted was ambiguous.  The
>>>>>>>>>> quotation above does not involve anything analogous to
>>>>>>>>>> "prevent", which is why Timbol's interpretation is incorrect,
>>>>>>>>>> and also why your "on the contrary" is incorrect.

>>>>>>>>> Wrong.

>>>>>>>> Is that the best you can do?  If you really didn't forget about
>>>>>>>> "prevent", then why did you omit such a crucial piece of
>>>>>>>> history?

>>>>>> Note:  no response.

>>>> Note:  still no response.

>>> My comments do not affect the inaccuracy of your argument.

>> What alleged comments?  You didn't make any comments in response to my
>> question.

Note:  no response.

>> What alleged inaccuracy of my argument?

Note:  no response.

>>>>>>>>> Go back and reread the thread to find out why.

>>>>>>>> Rereading the thread won't explain why you omitted the crucial
>>>>>>>> word "prevent" from your first response.

>>>>>>> It will reveal why your Java support statement is at odds with
>>>>>>> the argument you made 4 years ago in the "costly mistakes"
>>>>>>> thread

>>>>>> No, it won't.

>>>>> Yes, it will.

>>>> Impossible.

>>> Possible.

>> Feel free to demonstrate how, if you think you can, Lucien.

Note:  no response.

>>>>>> The reason is quite clear, as I already noted:  there
>>>>>> is nothing analogous to "prevent" in the quotation above.

>>>>> Wrong.

>>>> Feel free to identify the allegedly analogous word or words, if you
>>>> think you can, Lucien.

>> Note:  no response.

Note:  still no response.

>>>>> Reread the thread,

>>>> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
>>>> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
>>>> recollection of the issue.

>>>>> it'll explain why your argument about the Java statement (as well
>>>>> as the argument below) is wrong.

>>>> Impossible.

>>> Possible.

>> Feel free to demonstrate how, if you think you can, Lucien.

Note:  no response.

>>> Hint: Your JDK statement supports my argument in the old thread and
>>> not yours.

>> Incorrect, given that the JDK statement (which is Joseph's, by the
>> way, and not mine, which is yet another example of your reading
>> comprehension problem) does not involve any word analogous to
>> "prevent", whose definition implies a number.

> Wrong.

More pontification.  Consult your dictionary, Lucien.  If one costly
mistake happens, then it wasn't prevented.

> It is analogous

Then why can't you point to the allegedly analogous word, Lucien?

> - further proof you were lost for the duration of the
> "costly mistakes" thread.

Incorrect, but rather ironic, given that your failure to identify the
allegedly analogous word is further proof that you're still lost.

> Final course grade: F

More pontification.  No explanation, as usual.  You obviously don't
know what "final" means either, given that you've used it twice for
the same so-called "course".

>>> Reread the thread to find out why.

>> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
>> not, given the way in which you omitted "prevent" from your recent
>> recollection of the issue.

Note:  no response.

>>> Quiz 2 grade: F

>> Note the complete absence of any supporting explanation yet again.
>> It figures.

Note:  still no supporting explanation.

>>>>>> Let's use an example.  Suppose an album cover says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Encore!
>>>>>>    The New York Philharmonic
>>>>>>    performs works by
>>>>>>    Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, are you going to expect the album to include performances of
>>>>>> the complete works by Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss?  You
>>>>>> shouldn't, because there's nothing in the definition of the word
>>>>>> "performs" to suggest such completeness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly, when one writes "implements Java 1.2 functionality",
>>>>>> there is nothing in the definition of the word "implements" to
>>>>>> suggest that all such functionality was implemented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But when one writes "prevent costly mistakes", there is something
>>>>>> in the definition of "prevent" that does suggest all such
>>>>>> mistakes.  As I noted the last time we had the discussion, the
>>>>>> definition of "prevent" includes "to keep from happening".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can toss around all the X bar syntax you want to obfuscate
>>>>>> the issue.  It won't do you any good when you ignore the
>>>>>> definitions of the words.

>>>> Note:  no response.  I'm not surprised.  Lucien doesn't have one
>>>> (at least he doesn't have a logical one).

>> Note:  still no response.

Note:  still no response.

>>>>>>> (if you can follow your own argument therein, that is).

>>>>>> I can.  You obviously couldn't.  That's your problem, not mine.

>>>> Note:  no response.

>> Note:  still no response.

Note:  still no response.

>>>>>>>> I suggest you reread the thread to find out why you were wrong
>>>>>>>> then (and now).  You apparently need to refresh your memory
>>>>>>>> about certain critical portions of the argument, like the
>>>>>>>> meaning of "prevent".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Only you can prevent forest fires."
>>>>>>>>    --Smokey Bear
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "That's ambiguous."
>>>>>>>>    --Lucien

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               20-Oct-99 22:33:23
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: [tholen] Dave Tholen and song lyrics

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > In case you folks are missing it, Dave has just pointed out the illogic
> > in the lyrics of 4 different songs.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.  Rather, I pointed out the illogic of your usage of
> those lyrics as responses to me.  I said nothing about the lyrics
> themselves.  Of course, it takes decent reading comprehension skills
> to realize that.

Witness news://news-server/7uj61r%246pc%241%40news.hawaii.edu which
contains a line by line answer to the lyrics of a song.  Of course it
takes decent life experience to realize that it was from a song.

> > One wonders if he prefers communicating in FORTRAN rather than English.
>
> One wonders whether it would make any difference with you.

Wouldn't know.  You haven't tried either yet.

> >>>> I see you still didn't explain why you're suddenly reading that which
> >>>> is supposedly being filtered out by your killfile.
>
> >>> Relax, Mr. Tholen,
>
> >> What makes you think I'm not already relaxed, Marty?
>
> > Hmm... where to begin...
> > 1] your inability to demonstrate that you have a sense of humor
>
> A lie.

Please point out where you have clearly demonstrated a sense of humor.

> > 2] your inability to demonstrate that you have personality
>
> Another lie.

Please point out where you have clearly demonstrated personality.

> > 3] your inability to see humor or levity in any comments or situations
> > presented by others
>
> Another lie.

Please point out where you have clearly demonstrated humor or levity in
any comments or situations presented by others.

> > 4] your need to sift the following types of comments through your
> > pseudo-logical overly literal parser:
> >       a] jokes
> >       b] tongue-in-cheek comments
> >       c] parodies
> >       d] analogies and metaphors
> >       e] OS commentaries
> >       f] basketball commentaries
> >       g] discussions about automobiles
> >       h] insults
> >       i] song lyrics
>
> Another lie.

When have you not done so?

> > 5] your need to cling to discussions that are several years old
>
> Another lie.

Caught me red-handed on that one.  In case/because it's lost on you,
I'll point out that that was sarcasm.

> > 6] your need to respond directly to those who have no interest in what
> > you have to say
>
> Another lie, but rather interesting, considering the obvious failure
> of your alleged killfile.

How is it obviously a failure to you if you have no basis for knowing
what it was supposed to do?  That's quite illogical.

> > 7] your need to ask, "What makes you think I'm not already relaxed,
> > Marty?"
>
> Illogical, given that I didn't "need to" ask that.

Then why did you?

> > and finally 8] I saw the GIF picture of you presented during the
> > "wedgie" discussion
>
> How does that support your conclusion that I'm not relaxed, Marty?

Self-evident.  Seeing the picture makes me think you are not relaxed.  I
wouldn't be relaxed if that were my picture.

> > That is my basis for thinking you are not relaxed.
>
> Not much of a basis:  six lies, and two illogical remarks.

Please show how they were lies and illogical.  You've failed to show how
the 2 statements are illogical, and neglected to show how they are
lies.  How convenient.

> >>> My killfile is programmed to receive.
>
> >> Your killfile is programmed to filter out my postings so that you won't
> >> see them.  It's obviously not working as intended.
>
> > Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Witness your responses to me, Marty.

I have witnessed them (I wrote them, remember?), but they fail to prove
your point.  Nothing I said can conclusively tell you what my kill file
does.  So I say again, prove it, if you think you can.

> > How do you know what my killfile does?
>
> I know what your killfile is *not* doing.

What it is not doing is irrelevant.

> What you *wanted* it to do was made clear in your recent posting that
> complained about the typo in my address.

Practicing astrology again?

> How ironic that you complained about "drivel", yet here you are posting
drivel.

I complained about self-absorbed drivel, of which you continue to be a
purveyor.  Engaging in selective quotation again?  My drivel is not
self-absorbed.

> >>> You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.
>
> >> Illogical.
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> Feel free to explain why, if you think you can, Marty.

See above.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         21-Oct-99 03:17:24
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: [tholen] Dave Tholen and song lyrics

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> In case you folks are missing it, Dave has just pointed out the illogic
>>> in the lyrics of 4 different songs.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  Rather, I pointed out the illogic of your usage of
>> those lyrics as responses to me.  I said nothing about the lyrics
>> themselves.  Of course, it takes decent reading comprehension skills
>> to realize that.

> Witness news://news-server/7uj61r%246pc%241%40news.hawaii.edu

Netscape can't locate any such server, Marty.

> which contains a line by line answer to the lyrics of a song.

You claimed that I pointed out the illogic in the lyrics of 4 different
songs, Marty.

> Of course it takes decent life experience to realize that it was from
> a song.

Of course, it takes decent life experience to realize the difference
between 1 and 4.

>>> One wonders if he prefers communicating in FORTRAN rather than English.

>> One wonders whether it would make any difference with you.

> Wouldn't know.  You haven't tried either yet.

Incorrect.

>>>>>> I see you still didn't explain why you're suddenly reading that which
>>>>>> is supposedly being filtered out by your killfile.

>>>>> Relax, Mr. Tholen,

>>>> What makes you think I'm not already relaxed, Marty?

>>> Hmm... where to begin...
>>> 1] your inability to demonstrate that you have a sense of humor

>> A lie.

> Please point out where you have clearly demonstrated a sense of humor.

See my responses to Karel, or to those people who have admitted that
I do have a sense of humor.

However, you made the claim, therefore the burden of proof falls on
your shoulders, not mine.

>>> 2] your inability to demonstrate that you have personality

>> Another lie.

> Please point out where you have clearly demonstrated personality.

You made the claim, Marty, therefore the burden of proof is on your
shoulders.

>>> 3] your inability to see humor or levity in any comments or situations
>>> presented by others

>> Another lie.

> Please point out where you have clearly demonstrated humor or levity in
> any comments or situations presented by others.

See my responses to Karel, or to those people who have admitted that
I do have a sense of humor.

However, you made the claim, therefore the burden of proof falls on
your shoulders, not mine.

>>> 4] your need to sift the following types of comments through your
>>> pseudo-logical overly literal parser:
>>>       a] jokes
>>>       b] tongue-in-cheek comments
>>>       c] parodies
>>>       d] analogies and metaphors
>>>       e] OS commentaries
>>>       f] basketball commentaries
>>>       g] discussions about automobiles
>>>       h] insults
>>>       i] song lyrics

>> Another lie.

> When have you not done so?

Plenty of times.  Witness the number of postings with such comments, and
then count the number of my responses.

>>> 5] your need to cling to discussions that are several years old

>> Another lie.

> Caught me red-handed on that one.  In case/because it's lost on you,
> I'll point out that that was sarcasm.

That was a lie, Marty.

>>> 6] your need to respond directly to those who have no interest in what
>>> you have to say

>> Another lie, but rather interesting, considering the obvious failure
>> of your alleged killfile.

> How is it obviously a failure to you if you have no basis for knowing
> what it was supposed to do?

The key word here is "if".  I do have a basis, based on your recent
posting.

> That's quite illogical.

Incorrect.

>>> 7] your need to ask, "What makes you think I'm not already relaxed,
>>> Marty?"

>> Illogical, given that I didn't "need to" ask that.

> Then why did you?

Because I was interested in finding out the basis for your remark.
I also don't "need to" see Miss Saigon, but I'm planning to do so
anyway.

>>> and finally 8] I saw the GIF picture of you presented during the
>>> "wedgie" discussion

>> How does that support your conclusion that I'm not relaxed, Marty?

> Self-evident.

Incorrect.

> Seeing the picture makes me think you are not relaxed.

What you think is irrelevant, Marty.

> I wouldn't be relaxed if that were my picture.

Irrelevant, given that I am not you, thank goodness.

>>> That is my basis for thinking you are not relaxed.

>> Not much of a basis:  six lies, and two illogical remarks.

> Please show how they were lies and illogical.

The burden of proof is yours, Marty.

> You've failed to show how the 2 statements are illogical,

Incorrect.

> and neglected to show how they are lies.

I didn't say that the two illogical remarks are lies, Marty.  Why do
you think I counted only six lies?

> How convenient.

How illogical of you.

>>>>> My killfile is programmed to receive.

>>>> Your killfile is programmed to filter out my postings so that you won't
>>>> see them.  It's obviously not working as intended.

>>> Prove it, if you think you can.

>> Witness your responses to me, Marty.

> I have witnessed them (I wrote them, remember?), but they fail to prove
> your point.

On the contrary, they prove that you're seeing my postings.

> Nothing I said can conclusively tell you what my kill file does.

Something you said can conclusively tell me what you wanted it to do.
Does the following ring a bell?

M] As a courtesy to those that do not wish to see your self-absorbed
M] drivel, could you please keep your antispammed ID consistent so it
M] can be easily filtered?

> So I say again, prove it, if you think you can.

See above, Marty.

>>> How do you know what my killfile does?

>> I know what your killfile is *not* doing.

> What it is not doing is irrelevant.

On the contrary, what it is not doing is quite relevant.  It's not
filtering that which you wanted filtered.  See above for the relevant
quotation.

>> What you *wanted* it to do was made clear in your recent posting that
>> complained about the typo in my address.

> Practicing astrology again?

You're erroneously presupposing that I ever practiced astrology, Marty.

>> How ironic that you complained about "drivel", yet here you are posting
drivel.

> I complained about self-absorbed drivel,

How ironic.

> of which you continue to be a purveyor.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> Engaging in selective quotation again?

Obviously not, Marty.

> My drivel is not self-absorbed.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

>>>>> You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.

>>>> Illogical.

>>> Incorrect.

>> Feel free to explain why, if you think you can, Marty.

> See above.

There's no explanation from you above, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             20-Oct-99 23:32:24
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: Stanley Sidlov <[e-mail]>

I know how many attended. {I've been on the WS-Team list for 20 months now}  I
worked part-time at the registration table putting in 'walk-ins' we had a
database
(DBExpert from Sundial Systems) on-line, where we added them to the existing
database that was used to print the badges. I know how many rows there were.
But
frankly, if there were more than 2 or less than 450 with walk-ins to the free
exhibit space shouldn't be important to you at all, after all you didn't come
yourself. There were 190 people who attended the VOICE and Mensys sponsored
dinner
on Saturday Night -- Magic Moments; we had to turn people away since the cook
had
to know on Friday what the count was. The last raffle session still HAD
something
like the posting you quoted, but it was held at 6:30PM on SUNDAY.  More than
half
the people had already left to travel back to their homes.  Warped Jeopardy
which
was also held on Sunday, was SRO in a room with 200 seats hours earlier!

With Peter Coffee, David Moskowitz, a host of IBMers who actually deal with
OS/2
on a daily basis,  talking  about the past, present and the future -- it
certainly
was the best Warpstock (and I've attended all three).  As soon as the board
compiles the information taken from the attendees, vendors and speakers,
update
our Notes database on who, what and how it worked well and not so well, we
will be
getting on to Warpstock 2000.  Why don't you come and count for yourself?

 And Cornel (since I believe that you are Cornel Huth of 40th Floor Software
which
is where 40th.com is located),  I still love your OS/2 software, and I wish
you
were a vendor at Warpstock-- you could fight it out (with Sound Software that
is,)
with Julien P. of Theta Band. In fact, I mentioned in an upcoming OS/2 e-Zine
interview, that MidiDB was my favorite software.  My Yamaha SW60XG card plays
wonderfully under OS/2 with your software XG-DSP.

"[e-mail]" wrote:

> Richard Garrett Molpus? ([e-mail]?) wrote (Tue, 19 Oct 1999
04:31:18
> >At the last raffle session (6:30 PM approx), the room count
> >was at 125 - 150. I looked at the ticket roll after I made my
>
>                                                                     With
about
>                                                                     34
vendors
>
(bodies),
>                                                                       maybe
20
>
presenters
>                              Shh...                                     and
30
>
otherwise
>
involved,
>
that
>
leaves
>
about
>                                                                         83
who
>                                                                      came
just
>                                                                        for
the
>
thrill.
>
> Someone knows exactly how many attended -- no "I've got an eye for it"
needed.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Verio (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 03:44:13
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7ukpq5$f51$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>> Curtis Bass wrote:
>
> >>>> Ahh, the wonders of the Ambiguities of English . . .
> >>>>
> >>>> That's one problem with debate -- one has to choose words very
> >>>> carefully.  To say that "X implements Y functionality" really
> >>>> doesn't mean much, unless it's qualified. Does X implement *all*
> >>>> of Y's funtionality, or only *some* of it?  Unfortunately, the
> >>>> original quote can be correctly interpreted both ways, and
> >>>> arguing that one interpretation is "more correct" than the other
> >>>> is just as meaningless as the original quote itself.
>
> >>> This is essentially a correct analysis.
>
> >> Incorrect.
>
> > No, it is correct.
>
> Balderdash, Lucien.

Nope, it is correct.

> I explained why it is incorrect.

And your explanation is wrong. The proof is the same given in
the "costly mistakes" thread.

> Meanwhile, all
> you did is pontificate that it is correct "essentially".

On the contrary, I'm merely countering your illogic, as always.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 03:55:09
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7ukpdr$f51$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>

> >>> Reread it.
>
> >> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
>
> > Translation: Tholen refuses to reread the thread, because the
evidence
> > it contains was a public embarrasment for him
>
> Incorrect.  I said it was unnecessary because my memories of it are
> still quite clear.

Translation: David's memory of the thread is muddled.

>The public embarrassment is all yours, Lucien,

Translation: the public embarrassment of David's previous loss stings
him into making further illogical arguments.

> given your failure to realize that the definition of "prevent" implies
> a number, thus the statement was not ambiguous.

Translation: David still misunderstands the substance of the thread.

>
> I see you're once again leaving out the critical word "prevent".
> You can't hide, Lucien.  You can run, however.

Illogical, given that I'm right here countering your uneducated
arguments, making no attempt to run or hide.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         21-Oct-99 04:17:03
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>>> Curtis Bass wrote:

>>>>>> Ahh, the wonders of the Ambiguities of English . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's one problem with debate -- one has to choose words very
>>>>>> carefully.  To say that "X implements Y functionality" really
>>>>>> doesn't mean much, unless it's qualified. Does X implement *all*
>>>>>> of Y's funtionality, or only *some* of it?  Unfortunately, the
>>>>>> original quote can be correctly interpreted both ways, and
>>>>>> arguing that one interpretation is "more correct" than the other
>>>>>> is just as meaningless as the original quote itself.

>>>>> This is essentially a correct analysis.

>>>> Incorrect.

>>> No, it is correct.

>> Balderdash, Lucien.

> Nope, it is correct.

Balderdash, Lucien.

>> I explained why it is incorrect.

> And your explanation is wrong.

I see you're pontificating once again.  Where's your explanation?

> The proof is the same given in the "costly mistakes" thread.

Incorrect, given that there is no word analogous to "prevent" in
"implements Java 1.2 functionality".

>> Meanwhile, all you did is pontificate that it is correct
>> "essentially".

> On the contrary, I'm merely countering your illogic, as always.

You have yet to succeed, Lucien.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         21-Oct-99 04:24:03
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>>> Reread it.

>>>> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are

>>> Translation: Tholen refuses to reread the thread, because the
>>> evidence it contains was a public embarrasment for him

>> Incorrect.  I said it was unnecessary because my memories of it are
>> still quite clear.

> Translation: David's memory of the thread is muddled.

Incorrect.  I said it was unnecessary because my memories of it are
still quite clear.  Still having reading comprehension problems,
Lucien?

>> The public embarrassment is all yours, Lucien,

> Translation: the public embarrassment of David's previous loss stings
> him into making further illogical arguments.

Incorrect.  There is no previous loss to you on my part, nor are there
any further illogical arguments about this issue from me.

>> given your failure to realize that the definition of "prevent" implies
>> a number, thus the statement was not ambiguous.

> Translation: David still misunderstands the substance of the thread.

Incorrect.  I see you still can't do any better than simple
pontification.

>> I see you're once again leaving out the critical word "prevent".
>> You can't hide, Lucien.  You can run, however.

> Illogical,

Incorrect.

> given that I'm right here

Irrelevant, given that I indicated that you *can* run.  I never said that
you *did* run.  Yet more words whose definitions you fail to comprehend.
A pattern is emerging here, and it isn't helping your case any, Lucien.

> countering your uneducated arguments,

You've not countered my arguments, and my arguments are not uneducated
at all, Lucien.  Once again, all you're doing is pontificating.

> making no attempt to run or hide.

Irrelevant, given that I indicated that you can run and can't hide.  I
never said that you did run or hide.  Still having reading comprehension
problems, Lucien?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           21-Oct-99 01:06:07
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7ulnvi$9kq58$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 01:48 PM,
   "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]> said:

> > In point of fact, most Windows 9x users are NOT on a network. Therefore,
> > MS has introduced needless overhead, aka a serious bug, to the software.
> > People on networks either have knowledge or technical support in house.
> > Individual users lack both.

> That my friend is not a bug.  It is working as designed - not a bug.

First of all, you are not my friend, never can be since you are a liar,
and have no right to assume such familiarity. Secondly, only a MicroSoft
Lemming would make such an outrageous statement.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           21-Oct-99 01:09:01
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 10/20/99 at 05:44 PM,
   Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:

> I would never have been using NT and enjoying it's benefits now if I had
> your approach. You seem to have deeply entrenched anti-Windows opinions
> which are largely based on hearsay. Do you use either NT or win98 to any
> reasonable extent to have a working opinion to make your trolling
> statement worthwhile?

I have to support NT and Win9x as well as OS/2, DOS, ?NIX, etc. on more
than 10,000 machines. My experience with ALL MicroSoft products are that
they are technically inferior, slow, require constant rebooting, produce
meaningless error messages for no apparent reason, and generally represent
the worst of the class no matter which class one wishes to discuss.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           21-Oct-99 01:12:27
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 03:14:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <ntQNOEZruQ6XD3cktO=[e-mail]>, on 10/20/99 at 09:45 AM,
   Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:

> > I own my own company which supports over 10,000 desktops in large and
> > small corporations. We support various flavors of UNIX including RedHat,
> > ATT, SCO, NT, OS/2, AS/400, Novell, and Windows. The number of problems
> > software related calls with Windows is exponentially larger than all other
> > OS's combined. In the past 4 years, our calls per WIN 9x client have been
> > between 6 and 16 times higher than any other OS.

> Don't you think the size and technical competence of the userbase has
> something to do with this? Hand machines with Unix and linux over to the
> same set of users. Ask them to use these OS's in the same manner that
> they use win9x and see what the support call level is like. Then I'll
> take your comment seriously. :)

Now you have not only been caught with your foot in your mouth, you have
the entire leg there. We switched a company with 94 workstations from
Win9x to OS/2 last year. We did nothing to most of the workstations except
adding memory to 14 of them and installing a larger hard drive in those 14
plus 2 servers. We switched them from using Outlook Express for email to
Notes running Domino 4.6 under OS/2 and the OS/2 client. We switched them
from Office to SmartSuite 1.0 later upgraded to 1.1.

The number of service calls was reduced by more than 70%. And not one of
those service calls was due to OS failure which was rampant (corrupted
registry primarily) when running 9x. Referrals to competitive firms have
resulted in several new clients for our company.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               21-Oct-99 02:21:17
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 05:18:01
Subj: Re: [tholen] Dave Tholen and song lyrics

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>> In case you folks are missing it, Dave has just pointed out the illogic
> >>> in the lyrics of 4 different songs.
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.  Rather, I pointed out the illogic of your usage of
> >> those lyrics as responses to me.  I said nothing about the lyrics
> >> themselves.  Of course, it takes decent reading comprehension skills
> >> to realize that.
>
> > Witness news://news-server/7uj61r%246pc%241%40news.hawaii.edu
>
> Netscape can't locate any such server, Marty.
>
> > which contains a line by line answer to the lyrics of a song.
>
> You claimed that I pointed out the illogic in the lyrics of 4 different
> songs, Marty.
>
> > Of course it takes decent life experience to realize that it was from
> > a song.
>
> Of course, it takes decent life experience to realize the difference
> between 1 and 4.
>
> >>> One wonders if he prefers communicating in FORTRAN rather than English.
>
> >> One wonders whether it would make any difference with you.
>
> > Wouldn't know.  You haven't tried either yet.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> >>>>>> I see you still didn't explain why you're suddenly reading that which
> >>>>>> is supposedly being filtered out by your killfile.
>
> >>>>> Relax, Mr. Tholen,
>
> >>>> What makes you think I'm not already relaxed, Marty?
>
> >>> Hmm... where to begin...
> >>> 1] your inability to demonstrate that you have a sense of humor
>
> >> A lie.
>
> > Please point out where you have clearly demonstrated a sense of humor.
>
> See my responses to Karel, or to those people who have admitted that
> I do have a sense of humor.
>
> However, you made the claim, therefore the burden of proof falls on
> your shoulders, not mine.
>
> >>> 2] your inability to demonstrate that you have personality
>
> >> Another lie.
>
> > Please point out where you have clearly demonstrated personality.
>
> You made the claim, Marty, therefore the burden of proof is on your
> shoulders.
>
> >>> 3] your inability to see humor or levity in any comments or situations
> >>> presented by others
>
> >> Another lie.
>
> > Please point out where you have clearly demonstrated humor or levity in
> > any comments or situations presented by others.
>
> See my responses to Karel, or to those people who have admitted that
> I do have a sense of humor.
>
> However, you made the claim, therefore the burden of proof falls on
> your shoulders, not mine.
>
> >>> 4] your need to sift the following types of comments through your
> >>> pseudo-logical overly literal parser:
> >>>       a] jokes
> >>>       b] tongue-in-cheek comments
> >>>       c] parodies
> >>>       d] analogies and metaphors
> >>>       e] OS commentaries
> >>>       f] basketball commentaries
> >>>       g] discussions about automobiles
> >>>       h] insults
> >>>       i] song lyrics
>
> >> Another lie.
>
> > When have you not done so?
>
> Plenty of times.  Witness the number of postings with such comments, and
> then count the number of my responses.
>
> >>> 5] your need to cling to discussions that are several years old
>
> >> Another lie.
>
> > Caught me red-handed on that one.  In case/because it's lost on you,
> > I'll point out that that was sarcasm.
>
> That was a lie, Marty.
>
> >>> 6] your need to respond directly to those who have no interest in what
> >>> you have to say
>
> >> Another lie, but rather interesting, considering the obvious failure
> >> of your alleged killfile.
>
> > How is it obviously a failure to you if you have no basis for knowing
> > what it was supposed to do?
>
> The key word here is "if".  I do have a basis, based on your recent
> posting.
>
> > That's quite illogical.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> >>> 7] your need to ask, "What makes you think I'm not already relaxed,
> >>> Marty?"
>
> >> Illogical, given that I didn't "need to" ask that.
>
> > Then why did you?
>
> Because I was interested in finding out the basis for your remark.
> I also don't "need to" see Miss Saigon, but I'm planning to do so
> anyway.
>
> >>> and finally 8] I saw the GIF picture of you presented during the
> >>> "wedgie" discussion
>
> >> How does that support your conclusion that I'm not relaxed, Marty?
>
> > Self-evident.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> > Seeing the picture makes me think you are not relaxed.
>
> What you think is irrelevant, Marty.
>
> > I wouldn't be relaxed if that were my picture.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I am not you, thank goodness.
>
> >>> That is my basis for thinking you are not relaxed.
>
> >> Not much of a basis:  six lies, and two illogical remarks.
>
> > Please show how they were lies and illogical.
>
> The burden of proof is yours, Marty.
>
> > You've failed to show how the 2 statements are illogical,
>
> Incorrect.
>
> > and neglected to show how they are lies.
>
> I didn't say that the two illogical remarks are lies, Marty.  Why do
> you think I counted only six lies?
>
> > How convenient.
>
> How illogical of you.
>
> >>>>> My killfile is programmed to receive.
>
> >>>> Your killfile is programmed to filter out my postings so that you won't
> >>>> see them.  It's obviously not working as intended.
>
> >>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> >> Witness your responses to me, Marty.
>
> > I have witnessed them (I wrote them, remember?), but they fail to prove
> > your point.
>
> On the contrary, they prove that you're seeing my postings.
>
> > Nothing I said can conclusively tell you what my kill file does.
>
> Something you said can conclusively tell me what you wanted it to do.
> Does the following ring a bell?
>
> M] As a courtesy to those that do not wish to see your self-absorbed
> M] drivel, could you please keep your antispammed ID consistent so it
> M] can be easily filtered?
>
> > So I say again, prove it, if you think you can.
>
> See above, Marty.
>
> >>> How do you know what my killfile does?
>
> >> I know what your killfile is *not* doing.
>
> > What it is not doing is irrelevant.
>
> On the contrary, what it is not doing is quite relevant.  It's not
> filtering that which you wanted filtered.  See above for the relevant
> quotation.
>
> >> What you *wanted* it to do was made clear in your recent posting that
> >> complained about the typo in my address.
>
> > Practicing astrology again?
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I ever practiced astrology, Marty.
>
> >> How ironic that you complained about "drivel", yet here you are posting
drivel.
>
> > I complained about self-absorbed drivel,
>
> How ironic.
>
> > of which you continue to be a purveyor.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
>
> > Engaging in selective quotation again?
>
> Obviously not, Marty.
>
> > My drivel is not self-absorbed.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
>
> >>>>> You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.
>
> >>>> Illogical.
>
> >>> Incorrect.
>
> >> Feel free to explain why, if you think you can, Marty.
>
> > See above.
>
> There's no explanation from you above, Marty.

I started singing
Bye, bye Mr. Dave Tholen guy.
Spent a while out of my killfile
till my humor ran dry.
And good old Dave
my claims he did deny,
saying this is where the argument dies
this is where the argument dies....

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 06:34:13
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 05:18:01
Subj: Re: [tholen] Dave Tholen and song lyrics

From: [e-mail]

Marty writes:

>>>>> In case you folks are missing it, Dave has just pointed out the illogic
>>>>> in the lyrics of 4 different songs.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.  Rather, I pointed out the illogic of your usage of
>>>> those lyrics as responses to me.  I said nothing about the lyrics
>>>> themselves.  Of course, it takes decent reading comprehension skills
>>>> to realize that.

>>> Witness news://news-server/7uj61r%246pc%241%40news.hawaii.edu

>> Netscape can't locate any such server, Marty.

Note:  no response.

>>> which contains a line by line answer to the lyrics of a song.

>> You claimed that I pointed out the illogic in the lyrics of 4 different
>> songs, Marty.

Note:  no response.

>>> Of course it takes decent life experience to realize that it was from
>>> a song.

>> Of course, it takes decent life experience to realize the difference
>> between 1 and 4.

Note:  no response.

>>>>> One wonders if he prefers communicating in FORTRAN rather than English.

>>>> One wonders whether it would make any difference with you.

>>> Wouldn't know.  You haven't tried either yet.

>> Incorrect.

Note:  no response.

>>>>>>>> I see you still didn't explain why you're suddenly reading that which
>>>>>>>> is supposedly being filtered out by your killfile.

>>>>>>> Relax, Mr. Tholen,

>>>>>> What makes you think I'm not already relaxed, Marty?

>>>>> Hmm... where to begin...
>>>>> 1] your inability to demonstrate that you have a sense of humor

>>>> A lie.

>>> Please point out where you have clearly demonstrated a sense of humor.

>> See my responses to Karel, or to those people who have admitted that
>> I do have a sense of humor.
>>
>> However, you made the claim, therefore the burden of proof falls on
>> your shoulders, not mine.

Note:  no response.

>>>>> 2] your inability to demonstrate that you have personality

>>>> Another lie.

>>> Please point out where you have clearly demonstrated personality.

>> You made the claim, Marty, therefore the burden of proof is on your
>> shoulders.

Note:  no response.

>>>>> 3] your inability to see humor or levity in any comments or situations
>>>>> presented by others

>>>> Another lie.

>>> Please point out where you have clearly demonstrated humor or levity in
>>> any comments or situations presented by others.

>> See my responses to Karel, or to those people who have admitted that
>> I do have a sense of humor.
>>
>> However, you made the claim, therefore the burden of proof falls on
>> your shoulders, not mine.

Note:  no response.

>>>>> 4] your need to sift the following types of comments through your
>>>>> pseudo-logical overly literal parser:
>>>>>       a] jokes
>>>>>       b] tongue-in-cheek comments
>>>>>       c] parodies
>>>>>       d] analogies and metaphors
>>>>>       e] OS commentaries
>>>>>       f] basketball commentaries
>>>>>       g] discussions about automobiles
>>>>>       h] insults
>>>>>       i] song lyrics

>>>> Another lie.

>>> When have you not done so?

>> Plenty of times.  Witness the number of postings with such comments, and
>> then count the number of my responses.

Note:  no response.

>>>>> 5] your need to cling to discussions that are several years old

>>>> Another lie.

>>> Caught me red-handed on that one.  In case/because it's lost on you,
>>> I'll point out that that was sarcasm.

>> That was a lie, Marty.

Note:  no response.

>>>>> 6] your need to respond directly to those who have no interest in what
>>>>> you have to say

>>>> Another lie, but rather interesting, considering the obvious failure
>>>> of your alleged killfile.

>>> How is it obviously a failure to you if you have no basis for knowing
>>> what it was supposed to do?

>> The key word here is "if".  I do have a basis, based on your recent
>> posting.

Note:  no response.

>>> That's quite illogical.

>> Incorrect.

Note:  no response.

>>>>> 7] your need to ask, "What makes you think I'm not already relaxed,
>>>>> Marty?"

>>>> Illogical, given that I didn't "need to" ask that.

>>> Then why did you?

>> Because I was interested in finding out the basis for your remark.
>> I also don't "need to" see Miss Saigon, but I'm planning to do so
>> anyway.

Note:  no response.

>>>>> and finally 8] I saw the GIF picture of you presented during the
>>>>> "wedgie" discussion

>>>> How does that support your conclusion that I'm not relaxed, Marty?

>>> Self-evident.

>> Incorrect.

Note:  no response.

>>> Seeing the picture makes me think you are not relaxed.

>> What you think is irrelevant, Marty.

Note:  no response.

>>> I wouldn't be relaxed if that were my picture.

>> Irrelevant, given that I am not you, thank goodness.

Note:  no response.

>>>>> That is my basis for thinking you are not relaxed.

>>>> Not much of a basis:  six lies, and two illogical remarks.

>>> Please show how they were lies and illogical.

>> The burden of proof is yours, Marty.

Note:  no response.

>>> You've failed to show how the 2 statements are illogical,

>> Incorrect.

Note:  no response.

>>> and neglected to show how they are lies.

>> I didn't say that the two illogical remarks are lies, Marty.  Why do
>> you think I counted only six lies?

Note:  no response.

>>> How convenient.

>> How illogical of you.

Note:  no response.

>>>>>>> My killfile is programmed to receive.

>>>>>> Your killfile is programmed to filter out my postings so that you won't
>>>>>> see them.  It's obviously not working as intended.

>>>>> Prove it, if you think you can.

>>>> Witness your responses to me, Marty.

>>> I have witnessed them (I wrote them, remember?), but they fail to prove
>>> your point.

>> On the contrary, they prove that you're seeing my postings.

Note:  no response.

>>> Nothing I said can conclusively tell you what my kill file does.

>> Something you said can conclusively tell me what you wanted it to do.
>> Does the following ring a bell?
>>
>> M] As a courtesy to those that do not wish to see your self-absorbed
>> M] drivel, could you please keep your antispammed ID consistent so it
>> M] can be easily filtered?

Note:  no response.

>>> So I say again, prove it, if you think you can.

>> See above, Marty.

Note:  no response.

>>>>> How do you know what my killfile does?

>>>> I know what your killfile is *not* doing.

>>> What it is not doing is irrelevant.

>> On the contrary, what it is not doing is quite relevant.  It's not
>> filtering that which you wanted filtered.  See above for the relevant
>> quotation.

Note:  no response.

>>>> What you *wanted* it to do was made clear in your recent posting that
>>>> complained about the typo in my address.

>>> Practicing astrology again?

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I ever practiced astrology, Marty.

Note:  no response.

>>>> How ironic that you complained about "drivel", yet here you are posting
drivel.

>>> I complained about self-absorbed drivel,

>> How ironic.

Note:  no response.

>>> of which you continue to be a purveyor.

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

Note:  no response.

>>> Engaging in selective quotation again?

>> Obviously not, Marty.

Note:  no response.

>>> My drivel is not self-absorbed.

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

Note:  no response.

>>>>>>> You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.

>>>>>> Illogical.

>>>>> Incorrect.

>>>> Feel free to explain why, if you think you can, Marty.

>>> See above.

>> There's no explanation from you above, Marty.

> I started singing
> Bye, bye Mr. Dave Tholen guy.
> Spent a while out of my killfile
> till my humor ran dry.
> And good old Dave
> my claims he did deny,
> saying this is where the argument dies
> this is where the argument dies....

I see you have no better explanation for your bizarre actions.  Back to
playing your own brand of "infantile game", Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        21-Oct-99 06:55:29
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 05:18:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380ea065$2$obot$[e-mail]...
| On <[e-mail]>, on 10/20/99 at 05:44 PM,
|    Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:
|
| > I would never have been using NT and enjoying it's benefits now if I had
| > your approach. You seem to have deeply entrenched anti-Windows opinions
| > which are largely based on hearsay. Do you use either NT or win98 to any
| > reasonable extent to have a working opinion to make your trolling
| > statement worthwhile?
|
| I have to support NT and Win9x as well as OS/2, DOS, ?NIX, etc. on more
| than 10,000 machines. My experience with ALL MicroSoft products are that
| they are technically inferior, slow, require constant rebooting, produce
| meaningless error messages for no apparent reason, and generally represent
| the worst of the class no matter which class one wishes to discuss.

I tend to agree with Hobbyist here.  You seem to have an extremely biased
and closed minded opinion.  In the past 5 years I have worked for 4
different companies; 2 having networks in excess of 100 Windows nodes, 1
having in excess of 50 Windows nodes, and the last being a Systems
Integrator where I was able to temporarily contract out to over 30
companies, most of which having Windows networks of 100+ nodes, and some
with 1,000+ nodes.  In all of those travels I have never seen nor heard of
(outside of the extremely trustworthy Usenet) Windows networks that are as
rife with Windows problems as you describe.

All problems have their solutions.  If "reboot" is the paradigm at a given
company, then it is that company's fault for not solving their problems; for
prefering the bandaid over a lasting solution.  Windows problems are
fixable, just like all other problems.  I find it interesting that most
admins find it a worthwhile effort to troubleshoot and solve Unix problems,
but when there's a Windows problem they simply tell the user to reboot and
chalk up one more for MS.

Facinating.

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                      21-Oct-99 06:55:04
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 05:18:01
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])

Stanley Sidlov? ([e-mail]?) wrote (Wed, 20 Oct 1999 23:32:48 -04
>I know how many attended. {I've been on the WS-Team list for 20 months now}

                                                            Then just say it!
                                                              Say it for last
                                                              year's, and the
                                                                  one before.

>With Peter Coffee, David Moskowitz, a host of IBMers who actually deal with
>on a daily basis,

                                                               So they may...

>getting on to Warpstock 2000.  Why don't you come and count for yourself?

                                                              Come as you are
                                                                  As you were
                                                          As I want you to be

>were a vendor at Warpstock-- you could fight it out (with Sound Software tha
>with Julien P. of Theta Band. In fact, I mentioned in an upcoming OS/2 e-Zin

                                                        Ha-ha!  Theta wins by
                                                            default, and they
                                                              don't even have
                                                                any software.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        21-Oct-99 07:27:21
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 05:18:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380c9ca3$2$obot$[e-mail]...
| On <93_O3.2838$[e-mail]>, on 10/19/99 at 01:08
| PM,
|    "Chad Myers" <[e-mail]> said:
|
|
[snip]
|
| > Wow, that's funny, because I've used Win3.1 (with Trumpet), Win95,
| > Win98, and NT 4.0 to connect to about 30 different ISPs in my career and
| > I have never once experienced what you're talking about.
|
| Well, third party dialers connect virtually instantly. Only Win98 Second
| Edition seems to have fixed this bug which undoubtedly lies somewhere in
| the grotesquely overbloated IE code segments.

Since Win95 I have not used a third-party dialer.  The DUN component has
always been sufficient.  The only time I've had to mess with it was to
update to DUN 1.3.  After that update I didn't have any problems.  And like
Chad, I have dialed into quite a few ISPs and RAS enabled networks with
Windows DUN.  It is NOT broken as designed, as you would have us all
believe.

[snip]
|
| All possible testing has been done including testing by the local telco.
| The problem is a bug in Win 9x.

Can you then please explain, sir, how I have a laptop with Win95 Retail
Edition (DUN 1.3 update) connecting to IBM.NET without flaw?

[snip]
|
| > Sounds like Tyan's busmastering drivers, not Win9x.  I have a tyan MOBO
| > and NT/2K and a PNP NIC and busmastering is working.
|
| Funny, but OS/2, Linux, and PC-DOS do not have this problem. It is a bug
| in Windows 9x.

Funny, last I heard Windows drivers were not compatible with OS/2, Linux, or
PC-DOS.  Doesn't that leave the possibility that it might be a driver issue?
That doesn't rule out Windows9x all together, but only because you weren't
specific enough.  Win98 should have good drivers for BusMastering.  I've
made it work myself.  Win95 typically required hardware vendor provided
drivers for BusMastering.

You see, this "Windows9x is to blame" argument doesn't float when so many
othe people (millions of other people) are making it work, but you can't.
It may not be your fault; it might be a hardware incompatibility.  But you
seem quite willing to just say, "Ahh!! Fscking Windows again!"

[snip]
|
| > Ah... this is user failure.  It's auto-detecting the hardware again. You
| > either need to disable it, or load the proper drivers,
| > otherwise, Win9x will keep detecting it incorrectly and loading the
| > wrong driver.
|
| No it is not a user failure. I only run MS's Crap excuse for a menu
| program for testing. I do not wish to fork over money for a backup program
| and drivers for a device which will never see use under the Mickey Mouse
| menu program. It has an option to remove the device from this profile and
| refuses to do so. This is a bug.

Again, my curiosity is overwhelming.  Why do you think it is that many
people, such as myself, have never had a problem checking the box "Does not
exist in this profile."?  Did you uncheck the "Exists in all profiles box?"

This feature has always worked for me.  In fact, we are using it for our QA
department right now.  The boot to one profile and the modem is disabled but
the NIC is enabled.  If they boot to the other, they get the reverse.  Works
like a charm on 15 some odd machines running Win95/98/NTWS/NTS/Win2k.

[snip]
|
| > Win9x doesn't detect the newer modems correctly sometimes (especially
| > USR, for some reason).  Remove the Standard Modem (don't reboot) and
| > then load the USR modem drivers.
|
| Another documented bug which MS refuses to fix. FYI, I have done what you
| suggest. It still insists on loading a standard modem on the same port and
| IRQ as the USR.

Um, excuse me!  This isn't a bug in the OS.  This is a problem with the USR
.inf files for the modems.  I have fought with this too and the problem is
the .inf file not correctly identifying itself as the correct driver for the
device.  Since the device and drivers were created after Win95, it is up to
the modem driver to be written correctly to work with Windows.

Typically, removing all modems from the system and installing the device and
drivers PRECISELY as the mfgr suggests is necessary.  All the while allowing
Windows to run its auto-detection and such.

These modems DO install.  It just takes a little massaging.  If you want to
blame MS for not predicting what USR would do with their modem drivers,
that's up to you.  Even in the *nix world, making drivers work is typically
the responsibility of the hardware vendor.

[snip]
|
| > This sounds like a ThinkPad thing.  IBM is notorious for having oddities
| > like this.
|
| I reproduced the same behavior on one of my consoles running Boot Manager,
| WIn 98, and three logical volumes in an extended DOS partition. Boot
| Manager and the extended partition were history. A certifiable bug.

Let me get this straight.  You are using a third-party boot manager to dual
boot your laptop?  Isn't Boot Manager the dual boot application in OS/2?
Far be it from IBM to deny any responsibility and throw it back on
Microsoft's table.  ALL companies are guilty of not owning up to problems.
This one seems to have shared liability between MS and IBM.  MS didn't
respond, but IBM sounds a little too accepting of the lack of communication
with MS.  They both should be working to fix it.

[snip]
|
| Since Netware for all other operating systems and pseudo operating systems
| such as the DOS addon called Win 9x, is excellent, I do not believe for a
| minute that the fault lies anywhere north, south, east, west, over,
| beside, or under Redmond.

Why should you.  You claim that all other problems rise from Redmond too.
Next we'll be hearing that the Cosovo situation was an incarnation of
Bill's.

[snip]
|
| In point of fact, most Windows 9x users are NOT on a network. Therefore,
| MS has introduced needless overhead, aka a serious bug, to the software.
| People on networks either have knowledge or technical support in house.
| Individual users lack both.

Your original assertion is false.  The default authentication for DUN is
clear-text.  Also, when setting up DUN, all ISPs give directions on what
protocols to configure.  Since the DUN component relies on the networking
component, the user must go through that phase.  Most instructions note to
remove all protocols except for TCP/IP.  I don't much like the default
selections either (NetBEUI being one of them), but at the time Win95 was
released, NetBEUI was still used on many small networks, which is where
Win95 was targetted, as well as to the home user.  I haven't noticed if the
defaults have changed in Win98.

|
| > You are just grasping at straws now.
|
| > If you were attempting to say that Linux is better because of these few
| > exaggerated (or completely false) examples, then you have not a foot to
| > stand on because Linux is in much worse shape than this.
|
| No one example is false in any manner whatsoever. Your answers are nothing
| more than lies, disinformation, and excuses unworthy of kindergarten
| dropout.

Why?  Because his experience differs from yours?  I suppose I will be called
a liar now because my experience is not what you want to hear.  I'm sorry,
but I won't bow down to the "Hate Microsoft" underground simply because it's
getting trendy.  Microsoft has problems.  Many of them are fixable by
clueful people.  Many more are already fixed in Win98/SE and Win2k.  But the
system is usable and enjoyable.  NT is stable, when administered correctly.

The fact being that most of the problems you enumerated here are strawmen,
as Chad suggested.  If you had half a mind to fix these problems, you
probably would have done so easily.  But it was yet easier to blame it on MS
and come to Usenet to get it all off your chest.  Now I suppose you'll go
back the Linux and get some work done.  And that's good for you.  We should
all use the tools that work best for us, and leave alone those who decide to
use that which you do not like.


-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 07:12:24
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 05:18:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>> Then see everyone laugh in your face, just like they're doing now.

>>>> Who's laughing, Mike, excluding the ones laughing at you?

>>> Anyone who understands anything about Java.

>> Would that include IBM, Mike?

> Yes, Dave, it would.

But IBM isn't laughing in my face, Mike.

>>> You're not included, which is why you don't realize it.

>> I realize what IBM wrote, Mike, and I'll take IBM's word over yours
>> any day.

> That's why you believe that OS/2 is "a better Windows than Windows"

Incorrect.  My beliefs are irrelevant; my personal experience with
Windows and WINOS2 is relevant.

> and that OS/2 is "the premiere platform for Java development".

What makes you think that that is my belief, Mike?

> Maybe one day you'll be able to realize that reality is more proof
> than what a company writes.

I'm dealing with reality, Mike.  Maybe one day you'll be able to
realize the difference between what I really wrote (otherwise known
as reality) and what you attributed to me above (otherwise known as
fantasy).

> I'll take IBM's word over your any day,

I've not been giving you my word, Mike.  I've been giving you IBM's
word.  What do you think Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]
contains?

> and all I've seen from you is your interpretation of what IBM wrote.

Incorrect.  You've seen from me repeated references to
Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]
which does not involve any interpretation of what IBM wrote.
Still having reading comprehension problems, Mike?

>>>>> You just want to talk about a different subject, because you, as
>>>>> usual, jumped into an argument about a subject which you are
>>>>> ignorant of.

>>>> Incorrect, given that I haven't jumped into any argument about a subject
>>>> with which I'm ignorant.

>>> Then why did you claim that JDK 1.1.8 implements Java 2 security classes
>>> when it does not?

>> Prove that it does not, Mike.  I've provided a reference to my evidence.
>> All you've done is pontificate, as usual.

> IBM's additional security classes are in com.ibm.* packages.

We're talking about JDK 1.1.8, Mike.

> Those packages are not in JDK 1.2.

IBM hasn't released a JDK 1.2 for OS/2, Mike.

> The classes IBM added are not Java 2 security classes,

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail] states otherwise, Mike.

> they are proprietary classes from by IBM.

From by?

> If you refer to those classes from your program, your program will fail
> on a reference implementation of Java 2.

Prove it, Mike.

> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.

Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

>>> Then why did you claim Swing is part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8
>>> when it is not?

>> Prove that it does not, Mike.  I've provided a reference to my evidence.
>> All you've done is pontificate, as usual.

> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.

Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

> The Swing classes are not included.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail] states otherwise, Mike.

> You can download them separately,

Is that the argument you intend to hang your hat on, Mike???  IBM states
that the functionality was implemented in 1.1.8, and you claim it wasn't
because IBM split the download into multiple components?

> just as you can download them separately for the reference 1.1.x JDKs.

Are they identical, Mike?

>>> Why are you claiming Swing is "Java 1.2 functionality" when you earlier
>>> claimed that only features introduced with Java 1.2 qualify?

>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]

> Irrelevent.

You asked me why I made a claim, Mike.  I answered your question with
the reason why.  That makes my answer relevant.  Yet you claimed that
my answer is irrelevant.  That's illogical (put par for your course).

> Swing was introduced before Java 1.2.

Are you claiming that Swing for 1.1 is identical to Swing for 1.2, Mike?

>>> Because you are ignorant of the subject at hand.  As usual.

>> How ironic, coming from the person who is ignorant of:
>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]

> No irony involved, Dave, since that article is not the subject
> at hand.

On the contrary, it's ironic indeed, given that you were talking about
ignorance of the subject, and the subject is the Java 1.2 functionality
that was implemented in 1.1.8, which the referenced article just
happens to describe, and about which you are ignorant.

> As I mentioned, I couldn't find the message you indicate.

That's your problem, Mike.

> Repost it, if you wish to refer to it.

Here's the relevant piece, Mike:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security
] classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's
] implementation of the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.

> In any case, I'll just note that I've referred to the actual contents
> of the JDK in question,

Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

> and have provided, as evidence, references to and quotes from
> Sun's official web site.

Inadequate, Mike.

> You, on the other hand, present a reference to a newsgroup
> article,

Provided by IBM, Mike.

> and arguments about Fortran and music composers.

Which happen to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument.

> That says a lot for the quality of our respective arguments.

Yes, it shows how poor yours is.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        21-Oct-99 07:30:24
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 05:18:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Brent Davies <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:OfzP3.182$[e-mail]...
|
[snip]
|
| The fact being that most of the problems you enumerated here are strawmen,
| as Chad suggested.  If you had half a mind to fix these problems, you
| probably would have done so easily.  But it was yet easier to blame it on
MS
| and come to Usenet to get it all off your chest.  Now I suppose you'll go
| back the Linux and get some work done.  And that's good for you.  We
should
| all use the tools that work best for us, and leave alone those who decide
to
| use that which you do not like.

I hate to follow up my own post, but I must replace "Linux" with "OS/2".  I
just realized your OS of preference.  I do not believe, however, that this
in any way invalidates any of my points.

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        21-Oct-99 07:32:26
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 05:18:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380ea202$3$obot$[e-mail]...
[snip]
|
| The number of service calls was reduced by more than 70%. And not one of
| those service calls was due to OS failure which was rampant (corrupted
| registry primarily) when running 9x. Referrals to competitive firms have
| resulted in several new clients for our company.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OS/2 restrict user rights for
installing software, much the same way NT Workstation does?

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 21-Oct-99 08:07:26
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 05:18:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7umedg$n8h$[e-mail]>,
 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>>> You just want to talk about a different subject, because you, as
>>>>>> usual, jumped into an argument about a subject which you are
>>>>>> ignorant of.
>
>>>>> Incorrect, given that I haven't jumped into any argument about a subject
>>>>> with which I'm ignorant.
>
>>>> Then why did you claim that JDK 1.1.8 implements Java 2 security classes
>>>> when it does not?
>
>>> Prove that it does not, Mike.  I've provided a reference to my evidence.
>>> All you've done is pontificate, as usual.
>
>> IBM's additional security classes are in com.ibm.* packages.
>
>We're talking about JDK 1.1.8, Mike.

I know, Dave; and in IBM's JDK 1.1.8, IBM implemented additional
security classes in the com.ibm.* packages.  What part of that
didn't you understand?

>> Those packages are not in JDK 1.2.
>
>IBM hasn't released a JDK 1.2 for OS/2, Mike.

No duh.  But the fact that the so-called "Java 2 security classes" are
not in Java 2, means they aren't Java 2 security classes.

>> The classes IBM added are not Java 2 security classes,
>
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail] states otherwise, Mike.

Irrelevent.  The message is wrong.

>> they are proprietary classes from by IBM.
>
>From by?

They are proprietary classes from IBM.  They are not included in
Java 2.

>> If you refer to those classes from your program, your program will fail
>> on a reference implementation of Java 2.
>
>Prove it, Mike.

Look at the contents of rt.jar in a reference implementation of Java 2.
There are no security classes in the com.ibm.* package.  The classes
IBM included in their version of JDK 1.1.8 are not part of Java 2.  Any
reference to those classes will fail, since the classes will not be
found.  That's how Java works, Dave; if you refer to a missing class,
you get an exception.

>> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.
>
>Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.  The classes
are in jar files, which are easily read on non-OS/2 platforms.  You'd
know this if you actually knew something about the subject at hand.

>>>> Then why did you claim Swing is part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8
>>>> when it is not?
>
>>> Prove that it does not, Mike.  I've provided a reference to my evidence.
>>> All you've done is pontificate, as usual.
>
>> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.
>
>Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

See above.  I see you have no counter-evidence.

>> The Swing classes are not included.  You can download them separately,
>
>Is that the argument you intend to hang your hat on, Mike???  IBM states
>that the functionality was implemented in 1.1.8, and you claim it wasn't
>because IBM split the download into multiple components?

I claimed that Swing isn't part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.  It isn't.  It's
an add-on, just like it is for other 1.1.x JDKs.

>> just as you can download them separately for the reference 1.1.x JDKs.
>
>Are they identical, Mike?

They provide the same functionality and they implement the same API.

>>>> Why are you claiming Swing is "Java 1.2 functionality" when you earlier
>>>> claimed that only features introduced with Java 1.2 qualify?
>
>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]
>
>> Irrelevent.  Swing was introduced before Java 1.2.
>
>Are you claiming that Swing for 1.1 is identical to Swing for 1.2, Mike?

No, I'm stating that Swing was introduced before Java 1.2, which proves
that your claim is incorrect.

>>>> Because you are ignorant of the subject at hand.  As usual.
>
>>> How ironic, coming from the person who is ignorant of:
>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]
>
>> No irony involved, Dave, since that article is not the subject
>> at hand.
>
>On the contrary, it's ironic indeed, given that you were talking about
>ignorance of the subject, and the subject is the Java 1.2 functionality
>that was implemented in 1.1.8, which the referenced article just
>happens to describe, and about which you are ignorant.

The reference article doesn't describe that at all.

>> As I mentioned, I couldn't find the message you indicate.
>> Repost it, if you wish to refer to it.
>
>Here's the relevant piece, Mike:
>
>] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security
>] classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's
>] implementation of the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.

I'll note that the only reference in "the relevant piece" to "Java 2"
is "Java 2 security classes".  RMI over IIOP, COMM, and Swing are
not referred to as "Java 2 functionality".

In fact, the only piece that might be "Java 2 functionality" is "will
include Java 2 security classes."  Interestingly, it's written in future
tense.  Now that JDK 1.1.8 is actually available, it's clear that
"Java 2 security classes" are *not* provided.

>> In any case, I'll just note that I've referred to the actual contents
>> of the JDK in question, and have provided, as evidence, references to
>> and quotes from Sun's official web site.
>
>Inadequate, Mike.

On the contrary, the contents of the JDK disprove your claims that it
includes the items you claim, and the quotes from Sun's web site prove
that the items you mention don't count as "Java 2 functionality".

>> You, on the other hand, present a reference to a newsgroup
>> article,
>
>Provided by IBM, Mike.

Tell me, Dave, when was the article in question posted?  Then tell me
when JDK 1.1.8 was released.

     - Mike

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      21-Oct-99 02:06:23
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 10:33:27
Subj: Re: A reminder, please listen for all our sakes

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote:
: Remember (or try to), Microsoft wants to ship a perfected software package
: FOR ONCE.  Can't you give them credit or must you urinate on everything they
: do?

I've never urinated on anythng Microsoft does.  I do make fun of it.

: Yup, you have to pee all over the place because your little product, for
: every reason there was, did not succeed and become the general purpose OS it
: may or may not deserve to be.  Or are you peeing because somebody at
: microsoft knows how the american system actually works and took advantage of
: it?

or is it because they abused the system?

: My god, look at IBM's continual fuck-ups!  As I keep saying, in the October
: 1996 issue of OS/2 MAGAZINE, page 7, PERSPECTIVES column, John W Thompson
: (the dipshit) babbled his reasons as to why OS/2 didn't get the second beta
: it so desperately needed and why it was thrust into the market so quickly.

Yes, their is a difference with a product having bugs because it was
pushed to market too soon, and a product having bugs because the company
couldn't get them out because it was so poorly designed in the first place.

: Why don't you explain that to me before ripping on windows?!

Because we revoked your status as "King of the Newsgroup" after we found
out that you don't use OS/2.

: Even worse, why don't you look at IBM's complete computer history which
: started in the early 1950s AND go into every minute detail involved in their
: 1980 piece of piddle "IBM PC" and the circumstances around it.  IBM is just
: as evil as microsoft but you can't see it because you either weren't there
: at the time and had a moral conscience or you haven't studied up on things
: at all.  Now, I'm no historian but I've read enough and have seen enough PBS
: specials and didn't even need to conclude anything since they already
: spelled it out!

So you never made any conclusion?  Your just parroting what some person
told you that happened to be on TV.  I hope you don't vote that way.

: I am getting so fed up with you people.

Good, that is our goal.

: (nor did I ever believe, until now,
: that I would ever support microsoft on any issue of any sort - but you
: mindless dickless killjoys have nothing better to do than piss and moan
: because IBM is a fuck-up who has and who still uses the same marketing
: tactics microsoft uses to get their product across.  AS/400 side alone, my
: employer is now pissed at IBM because they are locked into an antiquated
: imaging system using the M0:DCA format instead of something that's an
: INDUSTRY STANDARD like TIFF!!!  And yet y'all think IBM is some sort of god.
: No they are not.  They are the same piggy capitalistic selfish bastard
: entity that microsoft or any other corporation is.  Period.)

You seem to do more then your fair share of pissing and moaning in this
newsgroup, and for what?  Over a small minority of computer users, who
use a software product you don't even like?  Why?

: Have a nice day.

So sincere.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            21-Oct-99 08:25:18
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 10:33:27
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:44:49, Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>
wrote:

> On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net posted :
>
> > > You're so credible. What is it that you were struggling so much with?
> > >
> > Look. I don't use Windows in any incarnation other than the - very
> > rare - WinOS/2 session (OK, I tell a lie: my old HP Omnibook 425 only
> > runs Win3.1, but that's just a note-taker for meetings ASO).
>
> So why are your feelings about it so seemingly negative? On what basis
> do you feel this way? Jealousy I guess. An overall feeling of OS/2
> injustice?
>
The fact that so many people use and applaude what is in essence a toy
operating system; the fact that their ignorance has done serious
damage to my operating system of choice (which has nothing toyish
about it); the fact that even the serious brother of the toy operating
system is inferior to my operating system of choice, and yet the
ignorami of the world think otherwise and thusly cause even more
damage to my operating system of choice; the fact that the maker of
said toy operating system now thinks himself in a position where he
owns the minds of the computer idiots of the world (so there isn't
much to own, but still...); the fact that so many people not only
don't object to the business techniques of the maker of said toy
operating system, but even applaude those techniques and will scorn
those who point out the fact that they are not only illegal but
unethical...

So yes, I guess there might be something like a general feeling of
injustice involved here.

> > It's just that on one or two occasions I wanted to dial in to my ISP
> > away from home (that's the good thing about IBM.net, now
> > attglobal.net: it's everywhere) and I happened to have to use a
> > Windows 95 machine.
> >
> > This was in Poland, so I figured they didn't have any better and I
> > didn't complain about the sorry excuse for an O/S they were using
> > (probably relics from the Soviet occupation). At this time I noticed
> > it took the Windows dialer a very long time to actually connect, but
> > as I'm not familiar with Win95, I put it down to FUS (Funky User
> > Syndrome) and got along.
>
> Typical. It's called having a seriously biased mindset.
>
> Look at what you said:
>
>   "I noticed at the time it took the dialler an unusually long amount
> time to establish a connect but, giving that this *was* win95 and I
> was struggling big time, I didn't think much of it at the time."
>
> What a remark to make considering that you don't use win95. It's
> supposed to be an OS that people struggle with. Your implication there
> is what I found amusing.
>
You really believe Win95 is G*d's answer to UI, don't you? *Any*
operating system one is not familiar with will present a struggle (OK,
so Windows more so than others, but that's not the point here). I
assumed that the difference in connecting had something to do with my
inexperience with Windows, which is the reason why I've never talked
about it before. I never used it to flame Windows, I never said:
"Windows is butt-lazy in connecting to my ISP", I reacted to Bob's
statement.

> What exactly was the struggle? Hitting the connect button and waiting?
>
Like I said: general inexperience with the thing, combined with its
overall unintuitiveness. But again, that comparison may not be fair:
I'm used to an OOUI (the best OOUI in the known universe, for that
matter), so anything will be slightly off-putting. I will even curse
my Psion 3a sometimes, although that little mongrel has a *hell* of a
UI!

> > Bob now says it's apparently something that happens to others as well.
> >
> > So what's your problem?
>
> What's yours?
>
I reacted to Bob saying I had experienced a similar problem with the
Win95 dialer and suddenly I've been turned into some kind of troll.

> > > Most technical users find that the problem with win9x is that there's
> > > no substance to it and I agree. You just use the thing and spit it
> > > out. No good multitasking, robustness, stability, reliability or
> > > flexibility to tap on ..... nothing really. IMHO, there's no real
> > > reason for an advanced user to use it.  For gaming maybe, but
> > > playstations are so prolific. Many struggle to get it to do things
> > > it's incapable of or whine that it lacks certain capabilities when it
> > > really should. The average user is often happy with it, however, and
> > > you can't really blame them when you *appreciate* what their needs
> > > are.
> > >
> > Let me get this straight: are you now ranting about Windows 9x to me,
> > while I don't even use the thing?
>
> You seem to require a little first hand educating where it's
> concerned. You made your comment to get some antiwin9x points eh? In
> the spirit of COOA right? Even though you don't use the OS based on
> your 'struggle' to connect to an ISP and not knowing the real reason
> behind the struggle right? This is the type of thing I hate the most,
> people who have a fleeting experience with windows that was negative
> and then make a comment to the effect, 'hey, what do you expect, it's
> just windows.' I'm just tired of that kindergarten type commentary.
>
_I_reacted_to_Bob_
He said the Win95 dialer was slow connecting to IBM.net. Chad Myers
practically accused him of making it up, so I said I had experienced
the same.

I mentioned the struggling because that's what I do when using Win95:
I don't use it often enough to have developed reflexes to work around
the O/S's shortcomings <Oh damn! that'll set him off again. Should I
delete? Nah, leave it in, it's true, after all.>

> If I'd had that approach I wouldn't have ended up using OS/2 for 2
> yrs. I was having stability problems with OS/2 initially which made it
> far more unstable than win9x. I persevered and fixed the problem.
>
> I would never have been using NT and enjoying it's benefits now if I
> had your approach. You seem to have deeply entrenched anti-Windows
> opinions which are largely based on hearsay. Do you use either NT or
> win98 to any reasonable extent to have a working opinion to make your
> trolling statement worthwhile?
>
Why? This is advocacy. The moment someone starts a group
comp.os.honest-comparisons-between, your complaints would become
valid. Then again, such a group would have pitifully few Windows
participants <heh heh>.

> > I know it's the 30th anniversary of Monty Python, but even the Pythons
> > wouldn't get this one.
>
> I think they would.

<chorus> Oh no they wouldn't!

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |
|                                                   |
|                                                   |
|                                                   |
|                                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------|

Say, this is getting pretty boring. Can I make a new anti-Windows one?

Please?

Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           21-Oct-99 06:46:11
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 10:33:27
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <JizP3.183$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 07:30 AM,
   "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:

> I hate to follow up my own post, but I must replace "Linux" with "OS/2".
> I just realized your OS of preference.  I do not believe, however, that
> this in any way invalidates any of my points.

You have yet to make a valid point in any of your meaningless drivel.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           21-Oct-99 06:48:11
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 10:33:27
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <2OyP3.180$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 06:55 AM,
   "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:


> I tend to agree with Hobbyist here.  You seem to have an extremely
> biased and closed minded opinion.  In the past 5 years I have worked for
> 4 different companies;

I have no doubt you worked for 4 companies in 5 years. It proves you don't
know a damn thing. No one with a work record like that is taken seriously
nor should they be.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 11:46:23
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 10:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7um443$hk1$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>>> Curtis Bass wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Ahh, the wonders of the Ambiguities of English . . .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's one problem with debate -- one has to choose words very
> >>>>>> carefully.  To say that "X implements Y functionality" really
> >>>>>> doesn't mean much, unless it's qualified. Does X implement
*all*
> >>>>>> of Y's funtionality, or only *some* of it?  Unfortunately, the
> >>>>>> original quote can be correctly interpreted both ways, and
> >>>>>> arguing that one interpretation is "more correct" than the
other
> >>>>>> is just as meaningless as the original quote itself.
>
> >>>>> This is essentially a correct analysis.
>
> >>>> Incorrect.
>
> >>> No, it is correct.
>
> >> Balderdash, Lucien.
>
> > Nope, it is correct.
>
> Balderdash, Lucien.
>
> >> I explained why it is incorrect.
>
> > And your explanation is wrong.
>
> I see you're pontificating once again.

On the contrary, I'm merely pointing out that your explanation is wrong.

> Where's your explanation?

It's in the "costly mistakes" thread. Find it there, if you think you
can.

> Incorrect, given that there is no word analogous to "prevent" in
> "implements Java 1.2 functionality".

Wrong. Further evidence that you were lost for the duration of the
thread.

> >> Meanwhile, all you did is pontificate that it is correct
> >> "essentially".
>
> > On the contrary, I'm merely countering your illogic, as always.
>
> You have yet to succeed, Lucien.

On the contrary, I did succeed in a manner that was very expensive for
you.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 12:05:06
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:10
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7um4h7$hk1$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>>> Reread it.
>
> >>>> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are
>
> >>> Translation: Tholen refuses to reread the thread, because the
> >>> evidence it contains was a public embarrasment for him
>
> >> Incorrect.  I said it was unnecessary because my memories of it are
> >> still quite clear.
>
> > Translation: David's memory of the thread is muddled.
>
> Incorrect.

Correct.

>  I said it was unnecessary because my memories of it are
> still quite clear.

It is necessary; your memories of the thread are muddled.

> Incorrect.  There is no previous loss to you on my part, nor are there
> any further illogical arguments about this issue from me.

Correct. Your argument was unwittingly illogical and you lost the
argument, as was plain to all involved.


> > Translation: David still misunderstands the substance of the thread.
>
> Incorrect.  I see you still can't do any better than simple
> pontification.

What alleged pontification? I'm merely countering your illogic.

> Irrelevant, given that I indicated that you *can* run.  I never said

Irrelevant, given that this thread is not concerned with running or
hiding.

> that
> you *did* run.

More irrelevancy.

> You've not countered my arguments,

I have countered your arguments at length and with evidence.

> and my arguments are not uneducated

Your arguments are profoundly uninformed.

> at all, Lucien.  Once again, all you're doing is pontificating.

Again the alleged pontification. I'm merely countering your illogic and
irrelevancies.

> > making no attempt to run or hide.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I indicated that you can run and can't hide.

More completely irrelevant statements, the tools of the ineffective
advocate.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      21-Oct-99 12:18:02
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:10
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

THAT statement identifies you as someone who has no concept of how the IT
business works and has worked.

Anyone that manages 10,000 systems and reports using "reboot" as a solution
for Windows problems knows nothing of debugging and probably is not giving
Windows a fair shake. I'm sure when a unix box and/or app falls over you
don't simply suggest "reboot it" (or do you?) - you fix it right? Why not
give the same respect to your Win boxes and see the reward? Also, typically
the servers get pampered while the end user machines get the most generic
treatment, and also the servers tend to be using NT or *Nix while the end
user machine are almost always Win 95 or 98 that was preinstalled and the
users have been hacking away on them for months and the problems that
surface are almost always related to poor setup, configuration and/or user
mismanagement/screwing around and/or plain stupidity

But, as a guy running 10,000 machines you'd have already learned all this by
now right?

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380eefa5$3$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <2OyP3.180$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 06:55 AM,
>    "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:
>
>
> > I tend to agree with Hobbyist here.  You seem to have an extremely
> > biased and closed minded opinion.  In the past 5 years I have worked for
> > 4 different companies;
>
> I have no doubt you worked for 4 companies in 5 years. It proves you don't
> know a damn thing. No one with a work record like that is taken seriously
> nor should they be.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> Aut Pax Aut Bellum
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @home (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                   21-Oct-99 12:20:20
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:10
Subj: Re: A reminder, please listen for all our sakes

From: [e-mail] (Truman Phillips)

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:40:01, "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Remember (or try to), Microsoft wants to ship a perfected software package
> FOR ONCE.  Can't you give them credit or must you urinate on everything they
> do?
>

They thought Win95 was good, that was a joke, WIn98 was supposed to be
far better, still a joke, (remember Willy Gates, and Comdex, when the
SUB scanner crashed?) I expect about the same from Win2K. Microsoft
needs to dump the entire Win9X/NT code, and start from scratch. Of
course, that will never happen, since if they loose backwards
compatibility, no one will buy Windows, since that is a reason people
upgrade to a newer product. Of course, I could be wrong on that point,
since Microsoft tends to bind any OEM computer builder, and most
Microsoft sales, are actually based on OEM distribution sales, I have
always questioned Microsoft's sales number, since when someone is
forced to buy the Microsoft OS, regardless of what else may be
available, that's just plain wrong.

> Yup, you have to pee all over the place because your little product, for
> every reason there was, did not succeed and become the general purpose OS it
> may or may not deserve to be.  Or are you peeing because somebody at
> microsoft knows how the american system actually works and took advantage of
> it?
>

That is why they are in the courts now, they not only took advantage
of it, they abused it, and now must pay the price. IBM did the same
thing with mainframes. Microsoft is just the next company that did not
realise, it's best to leave the market open to something else, just to
keep the legal eagles off yer back....

> My god, look at IBM's continual fuck-ups!  As I keep saying, in the October
> 1996 issue of OS/2 MAGAZINE, page 7, PERSPECTIVES column, John W Thompson
> (the dipshit) babbled his reasons as to why OS/2 didn't get the second beta
> it so desperately needed and why it was thrust into the market so quickly.
>
> Why don't you explain that to me before ripping on windows?!
>

See the above paragraph, since IBM is still bound by some of the
anti-trust stuff from thier own trials, they don't always function as
they should. I think the govt. would have done IBM a favor, if they
would have just broken IBM up, instead of making all the divisions
work independantly from each other.

> Even worse, why don't you look at IBM's complete computer history which
> started in the early 1950s AND go into every minute detail involved in their
> 1980 piece of piddle "IBM PC" and the circumstances around it.  IBM is just
> as evil as microsoft but you can't see it because you either weren't there
> at the time and had a moral conscience or you haven't studied up on things
> at all.  Now, I'm no historian but I've read enough and have seen enough PBS
> specials and didn't even need to conclude anything since they already
> spelled it out!
>
> I am getting so fed up with you people.  (nor did I ever believe, until now,
> that I would ever support microsoft on any issue of any sort - but you
> mindless dickless killjoys have nothing better to do than piss and moan
> because IBM is a fuck-up who has and who still uses the same marketing
> tactics microsoft uses to get their product across.  AS/400 side alone, my
> employer is now pissed at IBM because they are locked into an antiquated
> imaging system using the M0:DCA format instead of something that's an
> INDUSTRY STANDARD like TIFF!!!  And yet y'all think IBM is some sort of god.
> No they are not.  They are the same piggy capitalistic selfish bastard
> entity that microsoft or any other corporation is.  Period.)
>

How do you suppose industry standards are started? By a company who
releases something good enough, that everyone can use it, and it's
cheap enough to either give away, or liscence. Lot's of products
started as basic impletations only to become the fabled "Industry
Standard".

And of course any company is greedy, IBM has done some reallt nasty
things, and so has Microsoft, it seems like you are trying to tell us,
that just because IBM did it, why can't Microsoft. Look at the real
history, IBm got their nuts crunched for a monopoly in Mainframes, now
Microsoft, is getting the same treatment, for the same thing....
Neither is getting away with anything....

> Have a nice day.
>
> Jerry McBride <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > I got this, this morning... And I said it once and I'll say it again...
> > You gotta' love this microsoft shit...
> >
> > The word in quotes is my addition... You gotta' read the URL...
> >
> > ===========================================================
> > THE INFOWORLD SCOOP                      NETWORKING EDITION
> > ===========================================================
> >
> > Monday, October 18, 1999
> >
> > WINDOWS 2000 UP IN THE AIR
> >
> > Questions continue to swirl around Microsoft's monolithic
> > Windows 2000 operating system, with speculation over
> > the launch date becoming rampant as the company pulled
> > yet another "key" feature from the operating system.
> >
> > In a keynote address at the Gartner IT Symposium in
> > Orlando, Fla., last week, Microsoft President Steve
> > Ballmer remained vague about the delivery of Windows
> > 2000, saying only that it would ship sometime in the next
> > several months.
> >
> > For the full story:
> > http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?991015.hnwin2k.htm
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> ****************************************************************************
> ***
> > *            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...
> *
> > *       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.151 for your next java project at:
> *
> > *
> *
> > *                      GET IT NOW! WHILE IT'S STILL FREE!
> *
> > *
> *
> > *                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx
> *
> >
> ****************************************************************************
> ***
> >
> > /----------------------------------------\
> > | From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
> > |         [e-mail]             |
> > \----------------------------------------/
> >
> > --
> >
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      21-Oct-99 12:46:16
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:10
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Damn Bob, this pisses me off. Not only the blind silliness of your post
(which I'll rip in a sec) but just the fact that I had written a long reply
already, decided not to post it just cause I figured maybe I'm splintering
the thread, when I read Brent's follow up and realize, I'm not the only one
who's noted this before. So, here goes (again):

First, I'd like to know what an OS failure is and how registry corruption
was occuring rampantly? Mostly I'd like to know how you debugged this and
lastly, why hasn't anyone else noticed this problem. If you are a 10,000
seat MS user than you might very well have been able to get MS techs to
arrive physically on your site to assist debugging (if you really had 10,000
seats with Win on them and didn't bootleg your way past the licensing, you'd
be in a position to ring up Redmond and have them fly two techs out most any
day of the week, they're pretty cool about it, I can give you the name of
some of my fav. techs).

Now, Bob, have you considered something here:
Win9x is the OS for the masses. You install it at your company because the
users demand it. Even mangement that starts by insisting on something else
eventually gives in because all it's hirees only know Windows and they are
far less productive using anything else and the learning curves are counter
productive.

So, with Win9x installed, everyone and his sister think they are free to
install any Win app they can download, bootleg, borrow or steal. Revisit any
Win9x machine you installed 6 months ago and that nice Ghosted load you had
there has been changed, manipulated, updated, backdated and messed with a
dozen times over. Shutdowns without shutting down, apps installed and their
directories deleted instead of uninstalled. Joes favorite Win 3.11 screen
saver (Johnny castaway was so popular at one site that we had to institute a
"You got Johnny, you got no job" policy). The OS gets used and abused. And
these computer "idiots" screw it up and it starts to do what any OS messed
with does, it crashes. And your users aren't going to admit it happened
after they installed print shop master gold 6.5 from '97, tried it again
when it complained about some driver conflict error thing-a-ma-bob, then
finally installed print master '98 in the same directory (cause the names
sounded alike so they are probably the same program right?) and then when it
was really screwed up tried to uninstall the first one first and then when
trying to uninstall the second one and it wouldn't even run the uninstall so
they just deleted the directory and THEN called you to say: "Windows is
crashing in, ummmmm, WORD, yeah, WORD a lot" - you come over and say: Gee,
the OS sucks, my perfect users are suffering, I'll install something else.

So, you go and install OS/2 or even worse, Linux on their desktop. What
happens. Gee, they run the one or two authorized apps cause they are forced
to learn them. The OS itself is so alien and hard to use and unintuitive and
intimidating. They have nothing to install on it themselves cause no one
they know uses it or has any cute frog-in-the-blender games to send them.
All their kids software at home won't install as soon as it's put in the
CD-ROM anymore and even most java apps on the web fail under the slowest
netscape browser they could sneak in. Basically they stop abusing/using the
OS and JUST run their two apps (or app suites). And you think, gee, we have
no more "OS failures" - not realizing, it's cause they aren't doing anything
but running two apps instead of previously actually playing with the OS,
changing color depth, desktop resolution, running active desktop with push
channels, setting themes and generally mucking about in the OS
configuration. Control panel is there and it's easy to play with, let's run
with it!

Tell you what - fire up your policy editor, lock that desktop down. Force
your Win9x users to only be able to run their two-three assigned programs.
Perfect your Win9x load and then ghost it onto 100s of machine. I'll bet you
see a 90% reduction in "OS failures"

But, this is just my humble opinion - your milage may vary (especially if
you have a builtin bias against what you are forced to work with).



Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:380ea202$3>
> Now you have not only been caught with your foot in your mouth, you have
> the entire leg there. We switched a company with 94 workstations from
> Win9x to OS/2 last year. We did nothing to most of the workstations except
> adding memory to 14 of them and installing a larger hard drive in those 14
> plus 2 servers. We switched them from using Outlook Express for email to
> Notes running Domino 4.6 under OS/2 and the OS/2 client. We switched them
> from Office to SmartSuite 1.0 later upgraded to 1.1.
>
> The number of service calls was reduced by more than 70%. And not one of
> those service calls was due to OS failure which was rampant (corrupted
> registry primarily) when running 9x. Referrals to competitive firms have
> resulted in several new clients for our company.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> Aut Pax Aut Bellum
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @home (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  21-Oct-99 09:13:23
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:10
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something claiming to be a <[e-mail]> tholened and tholened
away:

> > Translation: David's memory of the thread is muddled.
>
> Incorrect.  I said it was unnecessary because my memories of it are
> still quite clear.

And we're supposed to believe this silly claim, Tholen?  Yeah, sure, your
memories of it are as clear as mud.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  21-Oct-99 08:36:08
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:10
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: [e-mail] (Jim Polaski)

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Eric Bennett) wrote:

> SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget
> EBNet Newswire
>
>
> Boston, MA.  October 20, 1999.  The Software Pirates of America (SPA)
> today announced a new lobbying campaign aimed at reducing the year 2000
> budgets for the Department of Justice and the U.S. Copyright Office.
>
>    "We believe that the Justice Department has handled enforcement of the
> copyright laws in an inappropriate manner", said SPA President R. Edward
> Baird, "and therefore it is appropriate for Congress to reduce the
> agency's funding."  Baird cited industry statistics showing that the
> activities of his organization have lowered costs to consumers and
> businesses around the world by hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
> "Many people who are prosecuted for violating copyright laws are
> actually protected under the 'fair use' clause", claimed Baird.  "These
> inappropriate and wayward prosecutions must be stopped."
=======
We really don't need to go any further than the first paragraph to see the
lack of understanding that the SPA has of Copyright Law.
First, no government agency or the like "Enforces" the Copyright Laws. ANY
ACTION against an infringer has to be brought by the infringed upon party.
IOW, the Justice Deaprtment is not going to go after any infringers. It
doesn't work that way. It is like saying that since I know one of my
friends pirated Adobe Photoshop, and since we both live in Milwaukee, then
the DOJ should go after them. In truth, it MUST be Adobe. They are the
infringed upon party that is suffering the loss, not the DOJ.

So, if this article is true, the SPA is full of horse manure.
=======
>    Industry analysts applauded the move.  Lem Ing of the Gardener Group
> noted that the move shows an increasing trend in the technology industry
> of groups being willing to challenge government waste.  "As usual,
> credit for this innovation should go to Microsoft," said Ing, "given the
> recent disclosure that Microsoft is lobbying against blatant waste in
> the DOJ's antitrust division.  And given that a prominent Republican has
> labeled the antitrust division as one of the most efficient units in the
> government, Microsoft's action clearly shows that even relatively
> efficient government agencies are still very wasteful.  We thus expect a
> flood of actions similar to the action disclosed today by the SPA, all
> aimed at at reducing overactive law enforcement activities."
>
>    Bo Guss, an analysts with Datajest, concurred with Baird's analysis,
> noting that "government prosecutions in this area clearly result in
> higher costs to large numbers of consumers and corporations."
>
>    Microsoft spokesman Tom Pilla blasted the group's efforts as
> constituting a "blatant disregard for the law", but Baird insists that
> his group's actions are ethical.  "Like Microsoft, we are simply
> exercising our rights to speak freely and to petition the government for
> a redress of grievances," he said.
>
>    There have also been reports that, due to the number of privately filed
> copyright suits, the SPA is considering lobbying for cuts in court
> funding for district courts that have not shown sympathy to SPA members.
> SPA officials refused to comment on these reports.
>
>
>
> For more breaking news from EBNet Newswire, please visit our web site:
> http://128.253.200.125/news/
>
> --
> EBNet Newswire, Inc.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Polaski P/D/C, 15 W. Hubbard, Chgo, IL (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                    21-Oct-99 15:56:09
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:10
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Gerben Bergman <[e-mail]>

Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:32:52 GMT was when a million monkeys took over Brent
Davies' computer and wrote:

| >The number of service calls was reduced by more than 70%. And not one of
| >those service calls was due to OS failure which was rampant (corrupted
| >registry primarily) when running 9x. Referrals to competitive firms have
| >resulted in several new clients for our company.
|
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OS/2 restrict user rights for
| installing software, much the same way NT Workstation does?

Nope. Given that OS/2 is single-user out-of-the-box, it doesn't have
anything in the way of user rights. Third-party utilities exist (DeskMan/2
comes to mind), but I don't know how far they'll go toward making OS/2 fully
multi-user. Perhaps an OS/2 advocate can jump in here?

By the way, Brent, do yourself a favor and ignore Bob Germer. Unless you get
off on people calling you a "worthless fucking liar" every time you say
something they don't agree with there's not much to gain in talking to this
person.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 14:06:08
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:10
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> writes:

: On <2OyP3.180$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 06:55 AM,
:    "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:


: > I tend to agree with Hobbyist here.  You seem to have an extremely
: > biased and closed minded opinion.  In the past 5 years I have worked for
: > 4 different companies;

: I have no doubt you worked for 4 companies in 5 years. It proves you don't
: know a damn thing. No one with a work record like that is taken seriously
: nor should they be.

<CLUESTICK> THWACK!!! </CLUESTICK>

Ever hear of contracts?  Some people work under them you know.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| =  :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
|     |  you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._|                    -- Lieutenant Commander Data

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Anamorphic 3-D Graphics Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               21-Oct-99 14:03:13
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>

In article <7ujb4u$a1c$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina writes:
>
> >>> I think I will indulge in some tholenisms, just for the bad old
> >>> times' sake.
>
> >> I wish you would, like indulging in some logic, but you keep
missing
> >> the mark by a wide margin.
>
> > I'm afraid tholenism and logic are incompatible,
>
> Incorrect.

Tholenism is a word I just invented. I know the definition way better
than you do, as far as that definition exists only in my head and I
have not shared it with you yet.

> > so I had to choose.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that they are incompatiable.

You are presuming you know what tholenism is.

> >>>>> You were not nominated because of the fact you present, but
> >>>>> because of another.
>
> >>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what motivated
> >>>> you to submit a nomination.
>
> >>> The fact for which you were nominated is not the fact that
motivated
> >>> me to nominate you.
>
> >> You just contradicted yourself.  You just said, in effect, that
your
> >> motivation was not what motivated you.
>
> > No, you just didn't understand me.
>
> Incorrect.  I understood what you wrote.  If you didn't mean what you
> wrote, that's your problem, not mine.

I wrote what I meant. If you fail to read what I write and understand
what
it means it's your problem.

> > I don't nominate every kook I meet.
>
> Obviously, given that you didn't nominate yourself.
>
> > I nominate kooks I meet and dislike.
>
> Is that why you didn't nominate yourself, because you like yourself?

Your short term memory is failing you. I already said several times
I don't believe I am a kook. But yes, I do like myself, so I fail
both criteria.

> > You were nominated because of the fact that you are (IMHO) a kook
>
> Too bad you can't prove it.

I can prove that it is my opinion.

> > and that I don't like you.
>
> I'm not surprised, given how badly my evidence made you look.

Nice to see you know I don't like you. You are assuming motives
that are wrong, though.

> > Your nomination, however says "this guy is a kook because he argues
> > with eliza" (not an actual quote).
>
> Which is a lie.

When I made the nomination it was my belief that you argued with Eliza.
Saying what one believes to be true can not be a lie. It can be a
mistake.
In fact I still believe you argued with Eliza, and that you are lying
when you say you didn't.

> > The things mentioned in your nomination are just a subset of the
> > personal reasons I had to nominate you,
>
> You didn't have to do anything, Roberto.
>
> > and therefore, not the same.
>
> Not the same as what, Roberto?

Not the same as "the personal reasons I had to nominate you" Dave. Your
reading skills seem to have gone downhill these two years.

> >>> Your comprehension problems continue.
>
> >> How ironic, considering the statement that you just wrote.
>
> > And that you completely failed to understand, obviously.
>
> Incorrect.  I understood what you wrote.  If you didn't mean what you
> wrote, that's your problem, not mine.

Deja vu.

> >>>> I'm simply noting the irony that you didn't nominate yourself,
> >>>> after making such a boneheaded mistake and continuing to insist
> >>>> that you were right, even after the source of the error was
clearly
> >>>> identified.
>
> >>> Being wrong is not kooky.
>
> >> Insisting that you're right, even long after the source of the
error
> >> was identified, is.
>
> > Nope.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?

I base that claim in that the definition of kook I accept doesn't
include that as one of the kook's definig features.

> >>> Insisting on mistakes is not kooky.
>
> >> Insisting that you're right, even long after the source of the
error
> >> was identified, is.
>
> > I said "A" and you said, "No, not A".
>
> My evidence consisted of far more than the equivalent of "No, not A",
> Roberto.

Your reading is abysmal. "A" is "Insisting on mistakes is not kooky.".
Your "Not A" is "Insisting that you're right, even long after the
source of the error was identified, is.".

> > Great argument strategy.
>
> Too bad that's not the argument strategy that I used.  I actually
> pointed to the dates spanned by the articles you referenced.

You are confusing that 1997 argument with the one happening here, Dave.


> >>> Kooky reasons
>
> >> What's allegedly "kooky" about the reasons, Roberto?
>
> > I'm afraid if you can't see it,
>
> I can't see what isn't there to be seen, Roberto.

That's just a subset of the things you can't see. You can't see protons
either. That doesn't imply protons are not there to be seen. Therefore,
that you can't see what's kooky about the reasons is not proof that
there
is nothing kooky about the reasons. That's basic logic, you should have
seen it coming. You are rusty.

> > you can't understand the explanation.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that there is a logical explanation.

I know there is one. I just believe you are uncapable of understanding
it.

> >>> for a kook.
>
> >> Such as yourself.
>
> > I actually meant you, (that was obvious for every careful reader).
>
> Too bad you can't prove it.

Prove what? That I meant you? I know what I meant better than you do.

> >>> Why should I nominate a person I do not believe to be a kook?
>
> >> Your beliefs are irrelevant, Roberto.  Your actions are relevant.
>
> > So, you are saying I should nominate a person I don't believe to
> > be a kook?
>
> Still having reading comprehension problems, Roberto?  I'm saying
> that your actions are relevant.

And here I was, believing that you were in some way responding to my
question. I made a simple question. You can answer by yes or no. Or you
can give a yes/no and explanation. What you gave was a non-response.

> > but I was not the one that argued with Eliza,
>
> Neither did I.

So you say. Prove it, if you think you can.

> > and lated denied it, Dave.
>
> Why shouldn't I deny something that didn't happen, Roberto?

Why should you?

> > Funny that you claim that my saying "Dave is a kook" is "truth by
> > proclamation" but your "I am not a kook" is not.
>
> Nothing funny about it.  I've referred to actual actions on your
> part.  You have not.

I referred to your argument with Eliza. That was an actual action on
your part.

> >>>>> Fear not, you're still a kook in my heart.
>
> >>>> What you have in your heart is irrelevant to me.
>
> >>> But not to me,
>
> >> Then start your own newsgroup and post articles to which you can
> >> respond.
>
> > If we apply the same standard to you, the world would be a better
place
> > quickly.
>
> Illogical, given that USENET doesn't extend to the entire world
> population.

Improving a part of the world improves the world as a whole, in the same
way that curing your hand improves your health.

> >>> Anyway, that was not the only time you argued with a computer
> >>> program.
>
> >> I've never argued with a computer program.
>
> Note:  no response.

Ok, here you have it: yes you did.

> >>> Do you authorize me to show here the other one?
>
> >> There is no "other one".
>
> > Then authorize me to show the exchange you had with my email
bouncer.
>
> I had no argument with your email bouncer, Roberto.

Then authorize me to show the exchange that you say was not an argument.
If you have nothing to hide, why hide?

> >> I respond to postings made by people.
> >> Some of those people post responses using personal attacks; some
> >> post responses using deletion tactics to avoid dealing with certain
> >> issues; some post responses generated by computer programs; I deal
> >> with all those responses.
>
> > A posting generated by a computer program without human intervention
> > is hardly a posting made by "people", Dave.
>
> The Eliza responses involved human intervention, Roberto, a fact that
> you still don't realize.

And there was no human intervention when you argued with my bouncer,
Dave,
and that was the specific instance I was talking about, a fact that you
didn't comprehend. There is also that pathetic thing about writing faked
automatic responses imitating the output of a program...

--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          21-Oct-99 09:09:11
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Brent Davies posted :

>
> Brent Davies <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:OfzP3.182$[e-mail]...
> |
> [snip]
> |
> | | The fact being that most of the problems you enumerated here are
> | strawmen, | as Chad suggested.  If you had half a mind to fix these
> | problems, you | probably would have done so easily.  But it was yet
> | easier to blame it on MS | and come to Usenet to get it all off your
> | chest.  Now I suppose you'll go | back the Linux and get some work
> | done.  And that's good for you.  We should | all use the tools that
> | work best for us, and leave alone those who decide to | use that which
> | you do not like.
>
> I hate to follow up my own post, but I must replace "Linux" with "OS/2".  I
> just realized your OS of preference.  I do not believe, however, that this
> in any way invalidates any of my points.

Not at all. I was an avid participant and member of the OS/2 community
and I agree with you wholeheartedly. :)

Your statements are well grounded.

--
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
         <remove _nospam_>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          21-Oct-99 09:09:08
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net posted :

==8<===
> The fact that so many people use and applaude what is in essence a toy
> operating system; the fact that their ignorance has done serious
> damage to my operating system of choice (which has nothing toyish
> about it); the fact that even the serious brother of the toy operating
> system is inferior to my operating system of choice, and yet the
> ignorami of the world think otherwise and thusly cause even more
> damage to my operating system of choice; the fact that the maker of
> said toy operating system now thinks himself in a position where he
> owns the minds of the computer idiots of the world (so there isn't
> much to own, but still...); the fact that so many people not only
> don't object to the business techniques of the maker of said toy
> operating system, but even applaude those techniques and will scorn
> those who point out the fact that they are not only illegal but
> unethical...

How can such strong convictions be based on hearsay.

I suggest strongly that you stop making such strong opinions off what
people tell you and use the OS's yourself with an open mind, then draw
your own conclusions.

> So yes, I guess there might be something like a general feeling of
> injustice involved here.

The injustice I see is you're anti-Windows OS rantings based solely on
hearsay.

==8<===
> You really believe Win95 is G*d's answer to UI, don't you?

No I don't. What gave you that impression? You made a ridiculously
unfair, trolling statement, with an attitude borne solely from second
hand information. I stepped forward to let you know that I see you for
what you are. That's all.

> * Any* operating system one is not familiar with will present a
> struggle.

Why do you say that? Once I sorted out OS/2, it wasn't a struggle. I
enjoyed using it and learning how to do so.

Many others, in fact, most others who use OS/2 don't have the sort of
problems that I had with OS/2 initially so I don't and I can't really
hold it against OS/2 per se.

> (OK, so Windows more so than others, but that's not the point
> here).  I assumed that the difference in connecting had something to
> do with my inexperience with Windows, which is the reason why I've
> never talked about it before.  I never used it to flame Windows, I
> never said: "Windows is butt-lazy in connecting to my ISP", I reacted
> to Bob's statement.

Then what are we supposed to think when you say:

  "giving that this *was* win95 and I was struggling big time, I
didn't think much of it at the time."

I just love how you stressed the word 'was' there. It brings across
your biased POV.

> Like I said: general inexperience with the thing, combined with its
> overall unintuitiveness. But again, that comparison may not be fair:
> I'm used to an OOUI (the best OOUI in the known universe, for that
> matter), so anything will be slightly off-putting. I will even curse
> my Psion 3a sometimes, although that little mongrel has a *hell* of a
> UI!

How did you come to that conclusion? Did your OS/2 friends tell you
that as well? By the way, how does OS/2's OOUI make it easier than in
Windows to dial-up to the internet? Please tell me how it shone in
this regard, so much for that matter, that it puts that horrible
Windows user interface to shame, and in so doing, making it a mighty,
unsurprising struggle for you? </sarcasm>

> I reacted to Bob saying I had experienced a similar problem with the
> Win95 dialer and suddenly I've been turned into some kind of troll.

But you are a troll and one who bases his trolls on hearsay, i.e.,
what his OS/2 buddies tell him. That's a sad existence. I've used OS/2
and loved it for what it was, er is. :) I have my perspective. Do you
really have yours? I suggest you get your own and stop relying on that
of others.

==8<===
> _I_reacted_to_Bob_
> He said the Win95 dialer was slow connecting to IBM.net. Chad Myers
> practically accused him of making it up, so I said I had experienced
> the same.

Agreed but that's not all you said or implied.

> I mentioned the struggling because that's what I do when using Win95:
> I don't use it often enough to have developed reflexes to work around
> the O/S's shortcomings <Oh damn! that'll set him off again.

I see that you do have insight into your trolling. You are clearly not
worth the time.

Have a nice day ... PLONK!

> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
>
> |---------------------------------------------------|
> |                                                   |
> |                                                   |
> |                                                   |
> |                                                   |
> |                                                   |
> |---------------------------------------------------|
>
> Say, this is getting pretty boring. Can I make a new anti-Windows one?
>
> Please?
>
> Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease?

How old are you anyway?

--
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
         <remove _nospam_>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           21-Oct-99 10:23:01
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <OfzP3.182$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 07:27 AM,
   "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:

> Um, excuse me!  This isn't a bug in the OS.  This is a problem with the
> USR ..inf files for the modems.  I have fought with this too and the
> problem is the .inf file not correctly identifying itself as the correct
> driver for the device.  Since the device and drivers were created after
> Win95, it is up to the modem driver to be written correctly to work with
> Windows.

Again you post pure bullshit FUD. The problem exists in Win98 which is
later than the USR product and drivers.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         21-Oct-99 14:24:14
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: [tholen] Dave Tholen and song lyrics

From: [e-mail] (Richard R. Klemmer)

On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 06:21:34, Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> I started singing
> Bye, bye Mr. Dave Tholen guy.
> Spent a while out of my killfile
> till my humor ran dry.
> And good old Dave
> my claims he did deny,
> saying this is where the argument dies
> this is where the argument dies....

Marty, please stop.  I'm laughing so hard my eyes are watering. :-)

Wierd Al has nothing over you.  Thanks for the laugh.

And I'd like to point out to everyone that Marty's song lyrics weren't
overly insulting to Dave Tholen, either.  As for the rest of his
posts... :-)


-----------------------------
Richard R. Klemmer
[e-mail]
http://www.webtrek.com
-----------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WebTrek L.L.C. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         21-Oct-99 14:25:19
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: [e-mail] (Richard R. Klemmer)

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:23:58, Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Some of us are capable of using a good software product without blindly
> worshipping its maker.  Likewise without loathing its maker.  You take
> business affairs too personally IMHO.

What?  No song?  Damn!

-----------------------------
Richard R. Klemmer
[e-mail]
http://www.webtrek.com
-----------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WebTrek L.L.C. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           21-Oct-99 10:24:03
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <0wDP3.13160$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 12:18 PM,
   "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> said:

> Anyone that manages 10,000 systems and reports using "reboot" as a
> solution for Windows problems knows nothing of debugging and probably is
> not giving Windows a fair shake. I'm sure when a unix box and/or app
> falls over you don't simply suggest "reboot it" (or do you?) - you fix
> it right? Why not give the same respect to your Win boxes and see the
> reward? Also, typically the servers get pampered while the end user
> machines get the most generic treatment, and also the servers tend to be
> using NT or *Nix while the end user machine are almost always Win 95 or
> 98 that was preinstalled and the users have been hacking away on them
> for months and the problems that surface are almost always related to
> poor setup, configuration and/or user mismanagement/screwing around
> and/or plain stupidity

If it were possible to fix the creeping registry corruption in Win 9x, I
would. However it is not. It is a fatal flaw in the program. Why do you
suppose that even MICROSOFT says not to deploy Win9x in a mission critical
envirnment? In most instances, no software has been added to the system.
Typically, the damn thing runs for about 3 or 4 weeks without problems.
Then random errors start to occur and continue to get worse to the point
where rebooting 3 or more times in an 8 hour day is required.

This just doesn't happen very often with ?nix, OS/2, etc.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         21-Oct-99 14:28:21
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Time for some humor re:Warpstock

From: [e-mail] (Richard R. Klemmer)

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:52:36, "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Now, it's humor time...
> In order to get more people to get to Warpstock, do this:
>

Well, you did get me to laugh.  Unfortunately, I was laughing at you
and not with you. :-)

-----------------------------
Richard R. Klemmer
[e-mail]
http://www.webtrek.com
-----------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WebTrek L.L.C. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               21-Oct-99 10:29:11
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"[e-mail]" wrote:
>
>                                                               Come as you
are
>                                                                   As you
were
>                                                           As I want you to
be

Be careful... you might have Professor Tholen give you a line-by-line
rebuttal when you quote song lyrics.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                              21-Oct-99 09:38:00
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: "Chad Myers" <[e-mail]>

Ok, I must be really dense...

So this is a real story and they simply just
replaced all the names with bogus ones?

Or is the whole story false?

Software Pirates of America (SPA)? heh
Software Piracy Association

Lem Ing

Gardener Group

Bo Gus

Datajest

Tom Pilla

--
Chad Myers
--
Have you recompiled your kernel today?


"mlw" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> The frightening fact that it is true.
>



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Jump.Net (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                       21-Oct-99 15:35:28
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Illya Vaes <[e-mail]>

Chad Myers wrote:
> Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>>3. Win 95 and 98 both fail to heed the setting in Hardware
>>Manager to remove my Wangtek SCSI tape drive from the profile and
>>consistently place it back with a Bang.
>Ah... this is user failure.  It's auto-detecting the hardware again.
>You either need to disable it, or load the proper drivers,
>otherwise, Win9x will keep detecting it incorrectly and loading the
>wrong driver.

Plug and Play not working (not to mention refusing users' instructions) is
user failure???
Man, that sounds pretty ... conditioned.

--
Illya Vaes   ([e-mail])        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel [phone], Fax [phone]           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               21-Oct-99 10:40:12
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: [tholen] Dave Tholen and song lyrics

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Note:  no response.

28 times.

Does this sound like someone who is relaxed?  How ironic that your
responses do more to reinforce my points than they do to tear them
down.  Of course, it takes a certain amount of objectivity to realize
that, which you clearly lack.

[Note:  no further response on my part is forthcoming on this matter]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           21-Oct-99 10:27:27
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <JWDP3.13162$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 12:46 PM,
   "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> said:

> First, I'd like to know what an OS failure is and how registry
> corruption was occuring rampantly? Mostly I'd like to know how you
> debugged this and lastly, why hasn't anyone else noticed this problem.

What a crock of shit! Thousands here in Usenet have commented at length
over the years on the creeping registry corruption problem with Win9x. If
one keeps rebooting often enough, you get TOLD at boot that the registry
is corrupt you moron!

> If you are a 10,000 seat MS user than you might very well have been able
> to get MS techs to arrive physically on your site to assist debugging

Those workstations, as stated previously, are spread out over many
clients. They are not in one place. But you knew that and deliberately
ignored it so as to try to justify the crap put out by the company which
obviously pays you, - namely MicroSoft.

> (if you really had 10,000 seats with Win on them and didn't bootleg your
> way past the licensing, you'd be in a position to ring up Redmond and
> have them fly two techs out most any day of the week, they're pretty
> cool about it, I can give you the name of some of my fav. techs).

Calling Redmond is a total waste of time. They do absolutely nothing more
than point fingers at hardware vendors, software vendors, etc.

> Now, Bob, have you considered something here:
> Win9x is the OS for the masses. You install it at your company because
> the users demand it. Even mangement that starts by insisting on
> something else eventually gives in because all it's hirees only know
> Windows and they are far less productive using anything else and the
> learning curves are counter productive.

More pure MS hype and lie. Employees will use what the institution
provides or find other employment. There was much wailing and bitching and
complaining at many of these clients sites when they were forced by a bad
management decisions to abandon WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS. We are correcting
this problem on an ongoing basis by reverting them to other alternatives
which allow proper use of WP.

> So, with Win9x installed, everyone and his sister think they are free to
> install any Win app they can download, bootleg, borrow or steal. Revisit
> any Win9x machine you installed 6 months ago and that nice Ghosted load
> you had there has been changed, manipulated, updated, backdated and
> messed with a dozen times over.

Not frequently. Most have not been altered from the original install other
than adding of workproduct.


>Shutdowns without shutting down,

Something Windows doesn't handle very well at all. A serious flaw in the
program. And one which must frequently be resorted to when Win 9x chooses
to lock up the keyboard and mouse or refuses to shut down.

apps installed and their directories deleted instead of uninstalled.

Something that should be readily fixable which it is not. This is a
serious problem with Win9x.


Joes> favorite Win 3.11 screen saver (Johnny castaway was so popular at
one > site that we had to institute a "You got Johnny, you got no job" >
policy). The OS gets used and abused.

How come, then, the same users doing the same things they have always been
doing don't have problems once Windows is replaced by a good operating
system? Tell me that you idiot.


>And these computer "idiots" screw
> it up and it starts to do what any OS messed with does, it crashes. And
> your users aren't going to admit it happened after they installed print
> shop master gold 6.5 from '97, tried it again when it complained about
> some driver conflict error thing-a-ma-bob, then finally installed print
> master '98 in the same directory (cause the names sounded alike so they
> are probably the same program right?) and then when it was really
> screwed up tried to uninstall the first one first and then when trying
> to uninstall the second one and it wouldn't even run the uninstall so
> they just deleted the directory and THEN called you to say: "Windows is
> crashing in, ummmmm, WORD, yeah, WORD a lot" - you come over and say:
> Gee, the OS sucks, my perfect users are suffering, I'll install
> something else.

A stable, properly designed operating system wouldn't be crashed by such
things. That Windows is while others are not (or with several magnitudes
fewer occurances) is proof that Windows is an abortion and fatally flawed
operating system.

> So, you go and install OS/2 or even worse, Linux on their desktop. What
> happens. Gee, they run the one or two authorized apps cause they are
> forced to learn them. The OS itself is so alien and hard to use and
> unintuitive and intimidating. They have nothing to install on it
> themselves cause no one they know uses it or has any cute
> frog-in-the-blender games to send them. All their kids software at home
> won't install as soon as it's put in the CD-ROM anymore and even most
> java apps on the web fail under the slowest netscape browser they could
> sneak in. Basically they stop abusing/using the OS and JUST run their
> two apps (or app suites).

Even if that were true which of course it is not, this is what employers
want their people to be doing. They don't want them playing games, doing
kids homework, etc. In fact, more than 40% of the workstations are set up
without a floppy drive and without a CD (or with same disabled) just to
prevent this sort of misuse of an employer's property.


 And you think, gee, we have no more "OS
> failures" - not realizing, it's cause they aren't doing anything but
> running two apps instead of previously actually playing with the OS,
> changing color depth, desktop resolution, running active desktop with
> push channels, setting themes and generally mucking about in the OS
> configuration. Control panel is there and it's easy to play with, let's
> run with it!

Again, a fatal flaw in Window's design. Control panel should be
unavailable to users.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           21-Oct-99 10:42:25
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 03:56 PM,
   Gerben Bergman <[e-mail]> said:

> | the fact that the maker of said toy operating system now thinks himself in
a
> | position where he owns the minds of the computer idiots of the world (so
> | there isn't much to own, but still...);

> Yes, Windows users are "idiots".

The only truthful thing you have posted here!

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Bergman is so dumb, he thinks a quarterback is change.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 15:18:01
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: [tholen] Dave Tholen and song lyrics

From: [e-mail]

Richard R. Klemmer writes:

> Marty wrote:

>> I started singing
>> Bye, bye Mr. Dave Tholen guy.
>> Spent a while out of my killfile
>> till my humor ran dry.
>> And good old Dave
>> my claims he did deny,
>> saying this is where the argument dies
>> this is where the argument dies....

> Marty, please stop.  I'm laughing so hard my eyes are watering. :-)

Control yourself, Richard.

> Wierd Al has nothing over you.

On the contrary, he has plenty over Marty.

> Thanks for the laugh.

And the inconsistency.

> And I'd like to point out to everyone that Marty's song lyrics weren't
> overly insulting to Dave Tholen, either.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they were.  I simply noted how
that Marty's killfile isn't working as intended.

> As for the rest of his posts... :-)

What about them?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]...               21-Oct-99 11:29:12
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Reality check

Message sender: [e-mail]

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

I'm sorry, "creeping registry corruption" does not return any hits on any
search I've performed.

Can you give me a specific URL?

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380f22c1$2$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <0wDP3.13160$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 12:18 PM,
>    "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > Anyone that manages 10,000 systems and reports using "reboot" as a
> > solution for Windows problems knows nothing of debugging and probably is
> > not giving Windows a fair shake. I'm sure when a unix box and/or app
> > falls over you don't simply suggest "reboot it" (or do you?) - you fix
> > it right? Why not give the same respect to your Win boxes and see the
> > reward? Also, typically the servers get pampered while the end user
> > machines get the most generic treatment, and also the servers tend to be
> > using NT or *Nix while the end user machine are almost always Win 95 or
> > 98 that was preinstalled and the users have been hacking away on them
> > for months and the problems that surface are almost always related to
> > poor setup, configuration and/or user mismanagement/screwing around
> > and/or plain stupidity
>
> If it were possible to fix the creeping registry corruption in Win 9x, I
> would. However it is not. It is a fatal flaw in the program. Why do you
> suppose that even MICROSOFT says not to deploy Win9x in a mission critical
> envirnment? In most instances, no software has been added to the system.
> Typically, the damn thing runs for about 3 or 4 weeks without problems.
> Then random errors start to occur and continue to get worse to the point
> where rebooting 3 or more times in an 8 hour day is required.
>
> This just doesn't happen very often with ?nix, OS/2, etc.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> Aut Pax Aut Bellum
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 15:20:23
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: [tholen] Dave Tholen and song lyrics

From: [e-mail]

Marty writes:

>> Note:  no response.

> 28 times.

28 times you didn't respond, Marty.

> Does this sound like someone who is relaxed?

Does it sound like someone who isn't relaxed, Marty?

> How ironic that your responses do more to reinforce my points than
> they do to tear them down.

Illogical, given that they do no such thing.  Meanwhile, the true
irony is that your continued responses reinforce my point that your
alleged killfile isn't doing its intended job.

> Of course, it takes a certain amount of objectivity to realize
> that, which you clearly lack.

How ironic, coming from someone who can't objectively see the failure
of his alleged killfile entry.

> [Note:  no further response on my part is forthcoming on this matter]

Famous last words.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 15:23:25
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: [e-mail]

Marty writes [to [e-mail]]:

> Be careful... you might have Professor Tholen give you a line-by-line
> rebuttal when you quote song lyrics.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 15:48:11
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>>> I am not wrong when I note that a FORTRAN 77 compiler implements
>>>>>>>> Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.

>>>>>>> Yes, Dave, you are.

>>>>>> No I'm not, Mike.  Even the compiler vendor states that the compiler
>>>>>> implements Fortran 90 functionality as extensions.

>>>>> Evidence, please.

>>>> WATCOM FORTRAN 77 version 11.0a.  Supports SELECT syntax, DO/END DO
>>>> syntax, and 132 character source lines, for example; not in FORTRAN 77,
>>>> but they are in Fortran 90.

>>> That's not evidence of what the vendor stated, Dave.

>> It's evidence that the compiler implements Fortran 90 functionality as
>> extensions, Mike.  That's what you asked for.

> No, it's not.

Incorrect, Mike.

> You said "Even the compiler vendor states that the compiler implements
> Fortran 90 functionality as extensions."

Very good, Mike.  Reading comprehension makes cameo appearance.

> I asked for evidence that the compiler vendor stated that.

Incorrect.  You wrote simply "Evidence, please."  Amazing how you can
have such reading comprehension problems so quickly after quoting
what I wrote correctly.

> You've failed to provide any.

Incorrect.  I provided evidence for Fortran 90 functionality that was
implemented via extensions.

>>> Show me the quote where the compiler vendor states "implements
>>> Fortran 90 functionality".  You can't.

>> Nor do I need to, given that I didn't refer to any quotation.

> You referred to what the compiler vendor stated, yet could not
> produce any evidence that they actually stated what you claimed
> they did.

I provided evidence for the Fortran 90 functionality implemented as
extensions, Mike.

>>> What you presented instead is a list of features, then claimed it
>>> means the same thing.  All you're doing is repeating your argument,
>>> not supporting it with evidence.

>> The Fortran 90 functionality I referred to is indeed evidence, Mike.

> The features you refer to only represent a partial list of the
> additional features of Fortran 90.

Irrelevant, given that it is sufficient to prove that Fortran 90
functionality was implemented.

By the way, you split your infinitive, Mike.  Tsk, tsk.

> They do not prove your claim that the compiler vendor considers
> their compiler as implementing Fortran 90 functionality.

They do prove that Fortran 90 functionality was implemented as
extensions, Mike.

> Thus, you are merely repeating your argument, not supporting it.

Incorrect, given that I am providing actual evidence of Fortran 90
functionality, Mike.  I had not previously listed any specific
Fortran 90 features, therefore I am not repeating myself.

>>> Yet you claim the FORTRAN 77 compiler implements Fortran 90 functionality.

>> The particular compiler I referred to does.  However, in my previous
>> response, I was referring to a generic FORTRAN 77 compiler.  In
>> something called a FORTRAN 77 compiler, one expects FORTRAN 77
>> functionality, not Fortran 90 functionality.

> Except if the vendor claims it had Fortran 90 functionality.

Irrelevant, given that in my previous response, I was referring to a
generic FORTRAN 77 compiler, which won't necessarily offer any
Fortran 90 functionality.

> Then, it makes sense for the users to expect that functionality.

And in those compilers that claim to offer Fortran 90 functionality,
users can expect some of that functionality.

>>> Why, then, would one not expect Fortran 90 functionality from the
>>> compiler in question?

>> I wasn't referring to the compiler in question when I responded to your
>> above remark, Mike.  I was referring to a generic FORTRAN 77 compiler.
>> The reference to "FORTRAN 77" makes it clear that one should not expect
>> Fortran 90 functionality.  The specific compiler I referred to does claim
>> to offer Fortran 90 functionality, however, while still calling itself a
>> FORTRAN 77 compiler, which means that one should expect some, but not all,
>> Fortran 90 features.

> No, Dave,

Illogical, Mike.  If they expect all Fortran 90 features, then they should
also expect the compiler to be called a Fortran 90 compiler.

> it is you who consider offering some Fortran 90 features as
> "offering Fortran 90 functionality".

Not just me, Mike.

> You could produce no statement from the compiler vendor that they
> share your viewpoint.

I could and did produce some of the Fortran 90 functionality included
in the compiler, Mike.

> Thus, this whole sidetrack about Fortran does nothing to help your
> case -- it's merely a diversion.

Incorrect, Mike.  It does everything to support my case, because it's
described as a FORTRAN 77 compiler with Fortran 90 functionality for
a reason.  You still haven't figured out what that reason is.  Tell me,
Mike, if you were selling a Fortran compiler that offered all of
Fortran 90's functionality, would you call it a FORTRAN 77 compiler?
If you were selling a JDK that offered all of 1.2's functionality,
would you call it 1.1.8?

>>>>>>> Yes, he would.  But that conclusion would be wrong because the
>>>>>>> statement is wrong.

>>>>>> Incorrect, given that the statement is not wrong.  The statement is
>>>>>> merely misinterpreted by people like you, who don't understand the
>>>>>> language properly.

>>>>> No, the statement is wrong.  If "Fortran 90 functionality" is
>>>>> promised, then one expects functionality equivalent to Fortran 90.

>>>> Illogical. If one expects functionality equivalent to Fortran 90, then
>>>> the compiler would have been called a Fortran 90 compiler, Mike.  It
>>>> wasn't.  That alone should tell you something.  Why do you think IBM is
>>>> calling their JDK 1.1.8 rather than 1.2?

>>> Because it doesn't support the functionality of JDK 1.2,

>> It does support some of it, Mike.

> It supports *some* of it.

Earlier you said it does not, Mike.  Do make up your mind.  Apparently
my evidence has had an effect.  Progress.

Now, if it supported *all* of it, why would IBM call it 1.1.8, Mike?

> Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2.

Earlier you said it does not, Mike.  Do make up your mind.  Apparently
my evidence has had an effect.  Progress.

> It doesn't have JDK 1.2 functionality, though.

Incorrect, Mike.  It does.  I listed those 1.2 functions implemented
in the JDK.

> Only some of it.

Earlier you said it does not, Mike.  Do make up your mind.  Apparently
my evidence has had an effect.  Progress.

>>> which is the point.

>> The point is that it's perfectly correct to state that JDK 1.1.8
>> implements JDK 1.2 functionality, because it does, Mike.  Nobody
>> should logically expect it to implement all of the 1.2 functionality,
>> because otherwise IBM would have called it 1.2.  IBM did not.  There's
>> a reason for that, and if you were capable of comprehending that
>> reason, then you couldn't logically conclude that "implements 1.2
>> functionality" means "all" rather than "some" of the functionality.

> You're changing your argument.

Balderdash, Miie.

> You're now saying that the important phrase isn't "implements
> JDK 1.2 functionality", the important phrase is "JDK 1.1.8".

That doesn't represent any change, Mike.  The first phrase is
important because it tells you what functionality is being referred
to, and the second phrase is important because it ought to tell you
that only some of the functionality is included, otherwise they
wouldn't be using that older version number.  Both are important,
which has been the case all along.

> If you say "Product X implements JDK 1.2 functionality", would not
> a reasonable person conclude that Product X actually does have
> functionality equivalent to JDK 1.2?

Not if X stands for JDK 1.1.8.

> Yes, they would.

Incorrect, Mike.  It would be illogical to expect that in a
product that still bears the older version number.  Of course,
you're known for your illogic.

> If you then say that they shouldn't conclude that because of the
> name of Product X, then you're making a contradictory statement:

Incorrect, Mike.  There's nothing contradictory about it.

> Product X implements JDK 1.2 functionality, except that it
> doesn't.

I never said anything about "it doesn't", Mike, therefore I've not
made any contradictory statement.

>>> Glad you agree.

>> I haven't agreed with your point, Mike.

> Yes, you have.

Feel free to point out the alleged agreement, Mike, if you think you
can.

> JDK 1.1.8 doesn't support the functionality of JDK 1.2

JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2 functionality, Mike.  I've listed that
functionality, Mike.  All you could do is pontificate that those
functions aren't really included.

> In the original post, Joseph brought up two versions on Netscape,
> where one of them could display everything the higher level version
> could.

Irrelevant to the issue I was discussing, Mike, but apparently the
program in question only utilizes a subset of the features supported
in the higher level version.

> In this case, you could argue that both versions had equivalent
> functionality.

I haven't, Mike

> He also claimed that JDK 1.1.8 supported the functionality of JDK 1.2.

He claimed that JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2 functionality, Mike.
Get it right.

> Do the two versions provide equivalent functionality?

Obviously not, otherwise IBM would not have called the JDK "1.1.8".

> Can one run everything the second one could?

Obviously not, otherwise IBM would not have called the JDK "1.1.8".

> Are they even close?

That's subjective, Mike.  What fraction of Java applications can't
the OS/2 JDK run?

> Not in the least.

Irrelevant, given that I never said otherwise, Mike.

> That's my point.

Your point is therefore irrelevant, because it doesn't deal with the
issue.

> You, of course, take the position that if JDK 1.1.8 implements even
> a single feature of JDK 1.2, you can claim it "implements JDK 1.2
> functionality".

Of course.  That's because it does implement JDK 1.2 functionality.
It's illogical to assume that all such 1.2 functions are included,
otherwise the JDK would not have been called "1.1.8".

> A semantic argument.

Incorrect, Mike.  It's a logical argument.

> Interestingly, you cannot name even a single thing which qualifies.

Incorrect, Mike.  I named that which IBM named.

>>>>>>> Which features are you referring to?

>>>>>> The features from Java 1.2 that IBM chose to implement in Java 1.1.8,
>>>>>> Mike.

>>>>> Which features would those be?

>>>> Java 2 security classes,

>>> Wrong.  IBM did not implement Java 2 security classes in Java 1.1.8.

>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>> Mike.

> Can't find that article with deja.com, Dave.

That's your problem, Mike.  Amazing how much you like to argue about
Java for OS/2, but how little you like to follow the news about it.
I'll give you a hint, Mike:  the article appeared in comp.os.os2.announce
and was submitted by an IBMer several months ago.  Where have you been?

> Repost it if you want to refer to it.

Here's the relevant excerpt:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security
] classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's
] implementation of the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.

> In any case, what some article on usenet refers to is irrelevent.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, as it represents IBM's word
about an IBM product, as opposed to your word about an IBM product
that you have no reason to use.

> The facts are relevent.

Then try providing some facts, Mike, rather than your usual drivel,
illogic, and deletion tactics.

> IBM did not implement Java 2 security classes in JDK 1.1.8.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
Mike.

>>> The extra security classes that they include in the Java 1.1.8 JDK are
>>> not included in Java 1.2.

>> IBM refers to them as Java 2 security classes, Mike.

> Irrelevent.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Mike.

> IBM also refers to OS/2 as "the premiere platform for
> Java development".

Where did IBM make such a reference, Mike?

> What IBM claims does not override the facts.

Do you even understand what IBM has claimed, Mike?  Feel free to
reproduce the alleged reference where IBM calls OS/2 the "premiere
platform for Java development".

>>> In fact, they are not allowed to do what you claim; licensees are
>>> barred from adding classes into the namespace of the the core JDK
>>> packages.

>> Then why does Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]
>> indicate otherwise, Mike?

> What the article indicates to you and what the article actually says
> are vastly different things.

In that case, what I actually claimed and what you think I claimed
are vastly different things.  I never made any claim about classes
being added into the namespace of the core JDK.  I merely claimed
that 1.1.8 includes Java 2 security classes, and that's what the
article says.  You're the one who twisted that around, Mike.

> The security classes that IBM *added* are in the com.ibm.* packages.

Irrelevant, Mike.  Doesn't change the fact that IBM stated that Java 2
security classes are included.

> The security classes that are part of Java 2 are in the java.security.*
> packages.  They are not the same classes.

What's different about them, Mike, their location?

>>>> Remote Method Invocation over IIOP,

>>> Wrong.  RMI over IIOP is not a Java 2 feature; it is a standard
>>> extension.

>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates
>> otherwise, Mike.

> Sun's web site indicates the truth.

Sun does not speak for IBM, Mike.

> You deleted that excerpt.

How ironic, coming from Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol.  Hypocrite.

>>> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.

>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>> Mike.

> Download the JDK from IBM's web site, Dave.  The classes aren't in it.

Wouldn't be the first time you couldn't find something that is there.
I guess it makes up for the times you found something that really
wasn't there.

>>>> the COMM API,

>>> Wrong.  The Communications API is also not a part of Java 2.

>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates otherwise,
>> Mike.

> Sun's web site indicates the truth.

Sun does not speak for IBM, Mike.

> You deleted that excerpt.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 15:48:11
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

How ironic, coming from Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol.  Hypocrite.

>>> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK

>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>> Mike.

> Download the JDK from IBM's web site, Dave.  The classes aren't in it.

Wouldn't be the first time you couldn't find something that is there.
I guess it makes up for the times you found something that really
wasn't there.

>>>> and Swing, for example.

>>> Swing was introduced before Java 2.

>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates otherwise,
>> Mike.

> Then it's wrong.  More likely, your interpretation is wrong.

Actually, more likely is that you're ignoring a difference in Swing
between the two versions.

>>> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.

>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>> Mike.

> Download the JDK from IBM's web site, Dave.  The classes aren't in it.

Wouldn't be the first time you couldn't find something that is there.
I guess it makes up for the times you found something that really
wasn't there.

>>> Sorry, you're 0 for 4.

>> Incorrect, Mike.

> I'm quite correct, Dave.

You're quite pontificating, Mike.

> I included references to official Sun web sites,

Sun does not speak for IBM, Mike.

> and quotes backing up my positions.

I've quoted IBM backing up my position, Mike.

> You had no response to those quotes.

Demonstrate their relevance, Mike.

>> Did you bother to even read the evidence I pointed you to?

> Couldn't find it with deja.com, Dave.

That's your problem, Mike.  Amazing how much you like to argue about
Java for OS/2, but how little you like to follow the news about it.
I'll give you a hint, Mike:  the article appeared in comp.os.os2.announce
and was submitted by an IBMer several months ago.  Where have you been?

> If you want to refer to items listed in that article, repost them here.

Here's the relevant excerpt:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security
] classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's
] implementation of the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.

>>> It's say "nice try", but that was pretty pathetic.

>> Your so-called "logic" is pretty pathetic, Mike.

> My logic is backed up by facts and reality.

Your fantasy is not "reality", Mike.

> Your claims are incorrect.

How ironic, coming from someone making incorrect claims.

>>>>> You are, once again, arguing from a position of arrogant ignorance.

>>>> On the contrary, I am, once again, arguing from a position of knowledge
>>>> and logic.

>>> Then why are all of your answers wrong?

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> The basis of knowing the facts.

Obviously you don't, Mike, which is why you keep attributing claims to
me and IBM that neither of us have made.

> That's why I included excerpts that proved my points.

That's why you make up claims and attribute them to IBM or me.

> And that's why you deleted those excerpts.

Incorrect, Mike.  Rather ironic that you should complain about
deletion, having engaged in it yourself.  Hypocrite.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               21-Oct-99 15:42:06
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: (1/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>

In article <7ujfde$ajn$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina writes:
>
> >>> I am part of the people.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that nothing was said about "part of the people"
by
> >> me.
>
> > The day only what you say is relevant, is the day I kill myself.
>
> Non sequitur, and not even grammatical.  You should have either
admitted
> to the irrelevance, or demonstrated the alleged relevance.

I'll rephrase. The day you are the judge of what is relevant and
what isn't relevant, that is the day I will kill myself.

This is not a court. There are no standard rules for relevance.
Since I don't agree that you are the one that has to decide about
the relevance of what I write, your "it's irrelevant" comments
are simply pointless, and I will ignore them if I feel like it.

> >>> Now, if I am part of the people, let me show you why what you said
> >>> makes no sense:
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that nothing was said about "part of the people"
by
> >> me.
>
> > I am part of the peopl, wether you say it or not.
>
> You're also a part of the male sex, which is something else I hadn't
said
> previously.  Doesn't make it relevant.

Who cares if you think it's relevant or not. That only matters to
you, in your own head.

> > Therefore, "Roberto is part of the people" is a useful hypothesis,
> > wether you said it or not.
>
> How is something irrelevant "a useful hypothesis"?

It is a useful hypothesis because it is true and helps me make
my point.

> >>> My claim:
> >>> -----
> >>> Well, Dave, [Your KOTM nomination] should show you that you are
not
> >>> universally seen as the beacon of pure reason and thought you
> >>> apparently think you are.
>
> >> I see you're inserting bracketed material to change the chronology
of
> >> what occurred.
>
> > Nope.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> > You are attributing intention without basis,
>
> On the contrary, I have a basis for attributing intention, and I
clearly
> explained that basis.

I don't see that. What is your basis for attributing intention
to my insertion of bracketed material? Be specific.

> >> Originally, you used "that", and the immediately
> >> preceding material to which you were responding involved your
> >> erroneous accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day.
>
> > I know wat I was talking about better than you , Dave.
>
> Doesn't matter if you can't properly express your knowledge in
writing,
> Roberto.

If I can't express myself properly, that doesn't mean that what you
believe I meant is what I meant.

> > I was talking about your KOTM nomination,
>
> Then you were non sequitur, Roberto.

I don't think so. Then again, who cares?

> > which was the subject of the thread before you threw your
non-sequitur.
>
> The subject of the paragraph to which you responded was your erroneous
> accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day, Roberto.  I
> wasn't the one who was non sequitur.  That was you.

You started talking about 134 articles a day when the subject was
your KOTM nomination. I was simply RETURNING to the subject before
your non sequitur.

> >>> -----
> >>> Let's break that into pieces:
>
> >> Gee, some people like to complain about sentences being broken into
> >> pieces.  Where were you when they did so?
>
> > There are many ways to break.
>
> You didn't answer my question.

It's one of those tholenisms I mentioned.

> > I like the way I broke my statement.
>
> Irrelevant.  You still didn't answer my question.

Ok, I will answer: I was in the city of Santa Fe, Argentina, at least
at the time of several of those complains, in 1997.

> >>> [a] I say you apparently think you are a beacon of pure reason and
> >>> thought.
>
> >> On what basis do you say what I appear to think, Roberto?
>
> > It appears to me, Dave.
>
> What is the basis for that appearance, Roberto?

My personal experience reading what you write in this newsgroup.

> > That should be obvious.
>
> What appears to you is not obvious, Roberto.  Perhaps you have a
> history of seeing things that don't really exist.

It should be obvious that I am talking about what appears to me.
It is not obvious that it agrees with reality, so my hypothetical
hallucinations don't really have any effect on the obviousness.

> >>> [b] I say that since I don't see you as one, you are not
universally
> >>> seen as one.
>
> >> And what are your reasons for not seeing me that way, Roberto?
>
> > Personal experience.
>
> What are these alleged experiences, Roberto?

Reading what you write.

> >> Because
> >> I noted a bit of history involving an embarrassing error of yours?
>
> > Not specifically.
>
> That's the observation of mine to which you responded, Roberto.

Yes. That has no bearing on my answer.

> >> "Well, Roberto, that should show you that you are not universally
seen
> >> as the non-kook you apparently think you are."
>
> > If you see me as a kook, then yes, I am not universally seen as a
> > non-kook. Hardly a challenging statement, just like mine.
>
> But I have more substance to point at than you do.

What substance? Your protruding belly button?

> >>> Since [a] is not a statement of fact but of my personal opinion,
you
> >>> can not deny it.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that I did not deny it.
>
> > I am not saying you denied it, I am saying you can't deny it.
>
> On the contrary, I am quite capable of denying it.  That doesn't mean
> I exercised that capability.

Can you deny it? How can you deny an opinion? Would you say "no, you
don't believe that" "no that is not your opinion" ?

> >> I didn't confirm it either.
>
> > I didn't say you confirmed it, I said you can't deny it.
>
> On the contrary, I am quite capable of denying it.  That doesn't mean
> I exercised that capability.

Show me how you would deny it.

> >> I simply noted that your statement was illogical as a response to
what
> >> I had written.
>
> > Pot, kettle, black.
>
> On what basis do you say that, Roberto?

On the illogical responses you give to almost anything.

> >>> You can however claim my opinion is wrong,
>
> >> What I can do is irrelevant.
>
> > Says who?
>
> Me.

Cool. Then I say it is relevant. Says me.

> > I am trying to make an argument here.
>
> You're not succeeding, Roberto.  Try using some logic.

I believe I suceeded in making the argument. I did fail in making
you understand it, though.

> >> What I actually did is relevant.  Why don't you deal with that,
Roberto?
>
> > I deal with whatever I want to deal with, Dave.
>
> Including irrelevant things.  Is that how you intend to make a case,
by
> arguing about items that are irrelevant?

Irrelevant to who?

> >>> and that you are not a beacon of pure reason and thought (BOPRAT
for
> >>> short).
>
> >> Apparently you think there is no ground between those two extremes.
> >> One can be logical while also using emotion to express, for
example,
> >> music.
>
> > You can universally be seen as a BOPRAT or you can not be.
>
> You're not addressing the point I made.
>
> > There is no middle ground for that.
>
> You're still not addressing the point I made.

Let's make your point more clear. What are the "two extremes" you
referred to? I thought they were the two positions I exposed in
the paragraph to which you replied. What was it, a non sequitur?

> >>> If you are not a BOPRAT, then you are accepting [b],
> >>> since you are part of the universe,
>
> >> So are you, Roberto.
>
> > Indeed. Thanks for the reminder.
>
> Did you really need a reminder, Roberto?

No, I was just being polite. So, now, fuck you for the reminder.

> >>> and my overall premise is correct.
>
> >> On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?
>
> > On the lengthy explanation I just gave,
>
> Which I rebutted.

Where?

> > against which your only argument was that some of the middle steps
should be
> > removed because they are "irrelevant".
>
> That's a sufficient argument, Roberto.

Nope. At least, not unless you are the judge and this is a court.

> >>> But you didn't do that.
>
> >> I didn't *not* do that either, Roberto.
>
> > I am not saying that you "didn't *not* do that either" Dave.
>
> Then what is the relevance of your remark, Roberto?

Obvious in the context on which it was made.

> >> There was neither acceptance nor non-acceptance on my part.
>
> > I just presented the logical consequence of what would have happened
> > if you did,
>
> But I didn't do either, therefore your logical consequence is
irrelevant.

Says who?

> > and specifically (remember the "can"?) marked it as such.
>
> Mark all the irrelevance you want, Roberto.  It won't help you make a
> compelling argument.

So you say.

> >>> You said
> >>> -----
> >>> Illogical, given that the above historical account doesn't do
> >>> anything to contradict any assumption about what people see.
> >>> -----
>
> >> I'm well aware of what I said, Roberto.
>
> > Good for you.
>
> Why repeat it?

To make it easier for the reader.

> >>> If I am part of the people,
> >>> "people" as a whole can not see you in a way different than my
own.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that I never said anything about people as a
whole,
> >> Roberto.
>
> > You denied my statement, which was precisely about that.
>
> >>> Part of the people may, of course, but not "people",
>
> >> Illogical, given that others are "people", and you do not speak for
> >> them, Roberto.
>
> > When you use a noun, you are by default referring to the entire
> > object described by it.
> > If "people is A" then all of people is A.
> > If "part of people is not A" then "not people is A".
> >>> which presumes a universal agreement by all parts of the
> >>> people, of which I am one.
>
> >> That's an illogical presumption, Roberto.
>
> > That's ordinary english.
>
> I was referring to your presumption, Roberto, not whether the English
> you used is ordinary or not.  Still having reading comprehension
> problems?

That "illogical presumption" is part of ordinary english usage.

> >>> Since the historical account shows that I don't see you as a
BOPRAT,
> >>> it contradicts directly an assumption that "people" see you as a
> >>> BOPRAT.
>
> >> Illogical, given that you don't speak for others, Roberto.
>
> > But I speak for part of the collective of people (my part).
>
> Then you shouldn't be using the plural, Roberto.

Where?

> > Therefore, the universal opinion of the collective can't be
> > opposite to my own.
>
> You're presupposing the existence of a universal opinion, Roberto.

No. That logic course is really a need for you.
"A can't have the B quality" says nothing about the existance of "A".
"Invisible men would be blind because the light would pass their
retines" says nothing about the existence of invisible men.

> > I am not saying that the opinion of the collective is my own either.
>
> Then why did you use the plural, Roberto?

Where?

> >>> That's why I said that nominating you for KOTM should
> >>> have shown you that "people" doesn't see you as a BOPRAT,
>
> >> You didn't say that, Roberto.
>
> > Yes I did.
>
> Incorrect.  You didn't say anything about a nomination.  You used the
> word "that" in a response to my recollection of your erroneous
> accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day.  Logically,
> the "that" refers to my response.

I know what "that" meant. I wrote it.

> >> Rather, you used the word "that" in a
> >> response to the immediately preceding material in which I noted
your
> >> erroneous accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day.
Your
> >> statement didn't include any reference to a nomination.
>
> > Your response was referring to the nomination.
>
> My response was referring to your erroneous accusation involving an
> average of 134 articles a day.

Then it was a non sequitur.

> > I know what I wrote.
>
> Doesn't matter if you can't properly express your knowledge in
writing,
> Roberto.

Doesn't mean that what you read is what I meant.

> >>> and thus, you should not have that assumption about how people see
> >>> you.
>
> >> On what basis do you claim that I do have that assumption, Roberto?
>
> > I didn't claim you have that assumption.
>
> Then why did you write the above, Roberto?

I had my reasons.

> >> On the contrary, my recollection of your erroneous accusation does
> >> nothing to contradict the specific assumption, given that no
> >> reasoning is involved.  Instead, recollection is involved.
>
> > Since it's now obvious that you were identifying wrongly what I was
> > referring to with "that",
>
> I'm not wrong at all, Roberto.  Logically, your "that" refers to the
> paragraph which it followed.

That's stupid. That meant what I wanted it to mean. Maybe I expressed
it wrong (I don't think I did) but even if it was the case, then
you are arguing about nothing but what you read, not what I meant.

> > your whole argument is flawed.
>
> Incorrect.  My argument is fine.  Yours is based on the claim that you
> meant something different from what you wrote.

My claim is actually that what I meant is not what you said I wrote.

> >>>>> I need not explain anything to you.
>
> >>>> Then explain it to the readers.
>
> >>> I need not explain anything to the readers either.
>
> >> Then don't blame them for whatever conclusions they might reach
about
> >> you, given your unwillingness to explain your actions.
>
> > I don't blame them. I never did.
>
> They just might conclude something you don't like.

I'll cross that bridge when I get to the river.

> >>> I never said you brought me up.
>
> >> Then why are you concluding that I'm "still pissed", given that I'm
> >> not the one who brought you up?
>
> > I say you are still pissed based on what you wrote, Dave.
>
> On what basis do you say that, Roberto?  If I recall that Clyde
Tombaugh
> discovered Pluto in 1930, are you going to erroneously conclude that
I'm
> still "pissed" about that discovery?

I am not saying that you are pissed because of what you remember. I am
saying you are pissed because of what you wrote.

> >>> Stop saying it,
>
> >> I'll say whatever is necessary to make my case, Roberto.
>
> > Including lies and half truths?
>
> Irrelevant, given that no lies and half truths are involved on my
part,
> Roberto.

It's a simple question. Answer yes or no.

> > Nice to see you come out of the closet.
>
> Illogical, given that there is no closet involved on my part, Roberto.

You said you will say "whatever is necessary".
"Whatever" includes lies.
You said you will lie if needed.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               21-Oct-99 15:42:06
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: (2/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

I just gave you a chance to look good, to say "Of course I didn't mean
I would lie". So, apparently you would lie.

> >>>> here you are, still trying to put the onus on me.
>
> >>> For the things you did brought up? Yes.
>
> >> But I didn't bring you up, therefore there is no onus to put on me.
> >> So why are you trying to do so?
>
> > I don't say you brought me up.
>
> But you are trying to put the onus on me.

No.

> > You brought up something else.
>
> A historical fact, Roberto.

Something.

> > I put on you the onus for it.
>
> Illogical, given that a recollection of a historical fact is no basis
> for concluding that someone is still "pissed".  See above for an
example.

I never said you are pissed because of recollection of historical fact.

> >>>> Irrelevant, given that my response does have a connection to what
> >>>> I'm replied to.
>
> >>> I can't parse that.
>
> >> That's your problem, Roberto.
>
> > I'd say it's your writing.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who wrote:
>
> RA] The day only what you say is relevant, is the day I kill myself.

You seem to ignore the meaning of ironic. At least I have a valid
excuse.

> >>>> The fact that you're here, responding to me, raises
> >>>> interesting questions about your own motivations.  Just how did
you
> >>>> manage to stumble across a reference to you in this newsgroup?
>
> >>> I notice all references to me in USENET.
>
> >> Really?  Do you read every single newsgroup to find references to
you?
>
> > There are this newfangled things called computers. They are good at
> > repetitive tasks, like pattern matching in massive amounts of text.
>
> Why would you even bother, Roberto?

Reasons explained already. Seems you did not, despite your claims,
read the whole message before replying.

> >> That's pretty bizarre behavior.
>
> > Since that's not a behaviour I practice,
>
> You practice a behavior that involves finding every reference to you
> in all newsgroups.

But I do not "read every single newsgroup to find references to [me]"
which is what you claimed was bizarre behaviour.

> > I don't care if you find it bizarre.
>
> You should.

Why? Are you a human behaviour specialist? I find your behaviour
bizarre. Do you care?

> Exactly what is your motivation for finding every reference
> to you in every newsgroup?

Explained before. You seem to have missed it (or you didn't read
and remember the whole article, despite your claims to the
contrary). Was that claim an example of saying "whatever it takes"?

> >>>>>>> PS: they weren't 134 a day,
>
> >>>>>> Then why did you claim there were,
>
> >>>>> Because I was wrong, Dave, just as I admitted years ago.
>
> >>>> Not right away.
>
> >>> Never said I did.
>
> >> And you never said (logically) why it took you so long to admit it.
>
> > I say what I want to say.
>
> And avoid saying that which you can't logically explain.

Yes.

> >>>>>>> but they sure felt like it.
>
> >>>>>> That wasn't your argument at the time.  You insisted on actual
> >>>>>> numbers back then, not feelings.
>
> >>>>> It is my argument of today.
>
> >>>> Ah, your argument du jour.
>
> > Small insert: it is "my argument d'aujourd'hui" not "du jour".
>
> That's not what I wrote, Roberto.

That's what you should have written if you wanted to use correct french.

> >>> Do you feel that writing in french makes you look more correct?
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that I am not writing in French.
>
> > "du jour" is french.
>
> I see you're ignoring the other 99+ percent.  Illogical.

So, you did write in french. Now, do you want to answer the
question?.

> >>>> Interesting that your "feeling" has a precision of 134.
>
> >>> Not necessarily.
>
> >> Non sequitur.  I'm noting something interesting.  See below for why
I
> >> find it interesting.  Necessity has nothing to do with it.
>
> > I am saying that my feeling is not necessarily precise.
>
> Then why did you use three digits of precision, Roberto?

Why not? Should I say "it felt like 125+-25"?

> > Your "interesting" bit is simply not necessarily correct.
>
> Illogical, given that my "interesting" bit is not a matter of
"correct"
> or "incorrect".  Rather, it's a matter of interest.

If you are interested in incorrect things that's your own problem.

> >>>> Others tend to use "dozens", or "umpteen", or
> >>>> some other non-specific term when referring to such feelings.
>
> >>> I don't think I would have felt different with anything from, say,
> >>> 100 up to 150.
>
> >> Then why choose 134 rather than "a hundred"?
>
> > Why not?
>
> Because it's wrong, Roberto.

If I feel the same between 100 and 150, "it felt like 134" is correct.
Just as "it felt like 148" is correct.

> >>>> You were specific down to the single posting, and used flawed
> >>>> mathematics, not feelings, to try and substantiate it.
>
> >>> You are confusing 1997 and 1999.
>
> >> Balderdash, Roberto.
>
> >>> As you said, in 1997 I was not talking about feelings.
>
> >> So, the explanation you did use was a lie.  Both explanations can't
be
> >> true.
>
> > You are confusing facts and feelings.
>
> Incorrect.  I'm comparing your argument then with your argument now.
> Both can't be true.

Since I am not arguing about the same thing, they could.

> >>> I am doing it now,
>
> >> All that time, and you couldn't come up with a better explanation.
>
> Note:  no response.

Note: response.

> >>> and I have not substantiated it in any way,
>
> >> How could you?  Can you substantiate your feelings?
>
> > I didn't say I can.
>
> I didn't say that you did.  I asked if you could.

And I exercised tholenism by giving a non-answer.

> Which was when you took a total number of postings and divided by a
> flawed date range.  Note:  no reference to any feelings at that time.

Because it was 1997.
>
> You also continued to insist that your calculation was correct, even
> after the error had been identified.  Note:  still no reference to any
> feelings at that time.

Because it was 1997, and:

> > Feelings came into this in 1999.
>
> Irrelevant, given that you made your accusation before 1999.  What
> matters is your motivation then, not now.  Motivation must precede
> action, not follow it.

Feelings were not the motivation for the 1997 incident. I never said
they were.

> > Look at the calendar.
>
> I'm looking at your illogic.

Illogic is not a visible object.

> >>>> You dug yourself into a hole back then, and I see you're doing it
> >>>> again, in a feeble attempt to save face.
>
> >>> At least I have a face to save, Dave.
>
> >> Too bad you're failing at the save attempt.
>
> > Too bad you are faceless.
>
> On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim, Roberto?

The big gaping hole above your neck?

> >>>>> What are you, some sort of librarian of ancient anger?
>
> >>>> What makes you ask that?
>
> >>> Curiosity.
>
> >> More like illogic.
>
> > No, it's curiosity.
>
> No, it's illogic.

I know my motivation better than you do. Now, care to answer the
question?

> > Will you answer the question?
>
> Why should I answer an illogical question, Roberto?

The question is not illogical. It is simple and has a yes/no answer.

> >>>> What are you, someone who seeks out any
> >>>> reference to you in any newsgroup?
>
> >>> Someone who has software to do that for him, actually.
>
> >> But why?
>
> > I explain that right below, Dave.
>
> No you don't, Roberto.
>
> > You should read the whole post before replying (and remember it).
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I did not.

Well, you missed the explanation about me searching for my projects
on USENET, and it is here. It seems you did not read the whole post
and remember it before replying. I'll accept an apology if you promise
never to lie to me again.

> >>>> Exactly what drew your attention
> >>>> to this newsgroup after so long a silence?
>
> >>> A reference to my name.
>
> >> That reference was made by Jason S.  Why didn't you respond to him,
> >> Roberto?
>
> > I didn't reply because I didn't believe it demanded an answer.
>
> My recollection also didn't demand an answer, Roberto.

I believe it did. Your opinion about wether I should reply or
not has no influence on mine.

> > I don't reply to all references to my name.
>
> Why did you reply to my reference, Roberto?

Because I believed it demanded an answer.

> >>> I do it to keep track of arguments I am involved in.
>
> >> Are you involved in arguments all over USENET, Roberto?
>
> > In more groups than I read.
>
> That's not "all over USENET", Roberto.

Then the answer to your question is no. I don't recall ever being
involved in an argument in alt.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk. so no,
I am not involved in arguments all over USENET.

> > Often I would reply in a thread about a project I am involved in,
> > on a newsgroup I don't read.
>
> Why would a thread about a project you're involved in utilize your
> name specifically, Roberto?

The thread doesn't. I said below that I also search for references
to my projects. Looks like despite your claim to the contrary, you
did not read the whole post and remembered it before replying.
Bad Dave!

> > Then I keep track of replies to my post by references to my name.
>
> That doesn't explain what triggered your post in the first place.
> If you don't read the newsgroup, then how did you find out about
> a reference to a project you're involved in?

Because I also search for references to my projects, as I said below.
How many more references to your apparently false claim of reading
the whole post (and remembering it) before replying are we going to
have today Dave? Is this the "I am Dave Tholen, I want to look like
a liar" day?

> > I also look for references to my projects on all of USENET.
>
> Why didn't you say that in the first place, Roberto?

I said it before you asked (half a dozen times!) for it. In fact, I said
it in the article quoted in the one where you repeatedly ask.

So you did read it now. Now, if you did read the whole post before
replying, why did you ask questions for which the answer was already
here? My guess: you lied about reading the whole article and remembering
it.

> >>> When I said "that's subjective, personal opinion" I was not
talking
> >>> about the numbers.
>
> >> Incorrect:
> >>
> >> RA] PPS: preemptive Tholen argument response: they felt like that
to
> >> RA] me, that's subjective, personal opinion,
> >>
> >> The subject is clearly "they", which is a reference to the average
> >> number of articles I posted each day.
>
> > "they" is a reference to the articles themselves, not to their
number,
> > Dave.
>
> "They" is a reference to the size of the collection of articles,
Roberto.

No, it is a reference to the collection of articles. A boring teather
play can feel like a dozen plays. A very good book can feel like a
thousand books.

> That size can be described with a number.  If "they" is not a
reference
> to a number, then why did you use a number to described that alleged
> feeling, Roberto?

Because it conveyed the feeling.

> > Who are you to say what I "talk" about?
>
> Someone who reads what you've written, Roberto.

Nice. I am the one who writes what you read. I have purest knowledge.
Information Theory 101.

> >>>>>>> so save it for the winter.
>
> >>>>>> I'll deal with you whenever you choose to respond, Roberto.
>
> >>>>> I'll deal with you whenever I have no need to be useful to
> >>>>> society.
>
> >>>> Exactly how does changing your argument (your argument du jour)
> >>>> benefit society, Roberto?
>
> >>> In no way.
>
> >> Then why do it, Roberto?
>
> > Why not?
>
> Because it makes you look like a fool, Roberto.

So?

> > You only do things for the benefit of society?
>
> Irrelevant, Roberto.  The issue is the motivation for you changing
> your argument.

Well, we all agree that it was not the benefit of society.

> >>> That's why I only do it when I am not needing to be useful.
>
> >> But when you need to lie to try and save face.
>
> > Not necessarily.
>
> In this case you did.

No.

> >>> Reading comprehension problems, Dave?
>
> >> Not at all, Roberto.
>
> > Your response to that question is as inevitable and thoughtless as
> > the drooling of Pavlov's dogs.
>
> Illogical, Roberto.  I'm not surprised.

Drool, doggie, drool.

--
Roberto Alsina


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]...               21-Oct-99 11:50:02
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Reality check

Message sender: [e-mail]

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

<sound of tasmanian devil winding up>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380f2610$3$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <JWDP3.13162$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 12:46 PM,
>    "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > First, I'd like to know what an OS failure is and how registry
> > corruption was occuring rampantly? Mostly I'd like to know how you
> > debugged this and lastly, why hasn't anyone else noticed this problem.
>
> What a crock of shit! Thousands here in Usenet have commented at length
> over the years on the creeping registry corruption problem with Win9x. If
> one keeps rebooting often enough, you get TOLD at boot that the registry
> is corrupt you moron!
"Creeping registry corruption problem" - I missed that one. Care to document
better than saying thousands have seen it.

>
> > If you are a 10,000 seat MS user than you might very well have been able
> > to get MS techs to arrive physically on your site to assist debugging
>
> Those workstations, as stated previously, are spread out over many
> clients. They are not in one place. But you knew that and deliberately
> ignored it so as to try to justify the crap put out by the company which
> obviously pays you, - namely MicroSoft.

I knew that? How did I know that? Am I psychic? I do not work for nor am
paid by MS in any way shape or form. I have no idea who you are, YOU are the
one spouting 10,000 seat claims.


>
> > (if you really had 10,000 seats with Win on them and didn't bootleg your
> > way past the licensing, you'd be in a position to ring up Redmond and
> > have them fly two techs out most any day of the week, they're pretty
> > cool about it, I can give you the name of some of my fav. techs).
>
> Calling Redmond is a total waste of time. They do absolutely nothing more
> than point fingers at hardware vendors, software vendors, etc.

That may have been your experience, but not mine. Wherever they pointed
their finger (including at themselves sometimes) has been the source of the
problem, or they weren't paid. Simple. And we've always paid.

> > Now, Bob, have you considered something here:
> > Win9x is the OS for the masses. You install it at your company because
> > the users demand it. Even mangement that starts by insisting on
> > something else eventually gives in because all it's hirees only know
> > Windows and they are far less productive using anything else and the
> > learning curves are counter productive.
>
> More pure MS hype and lie. Employees will use what the institution
> provides or find other employment. There was much wailing and bitching and
> complaining at many of these clients sites when they were forced by a bad
> management decisions to abandon WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS. We are correcting
> this problem on an ongoing basis by reverting them to other alternatives
> which allow proper use of WP.
Yeah, sure. MS is paying everyone to use their products. First they make us
go into stores and buy the stuff then secretly they brainwash us at night
into thinking they are god and we worship them. Sure... So, WP 5.1 for DOS
is where your WP skills are at eh? Don't worry, one day you'll catch up, let
me give you a head start in class: WYSIWYG - it'll catch on, trust me.

>
> > So, with Win9x installed, everyone and his sister think they are free to
> > install any Win app they can download, bootleg, borrow or steal. Revisit
> > any Win9x machine you installed 6 months ago and that nice Ghosted load
> > you had there has been changed, manipulated, updated, backdated and
> > messed with a dozen times over.
>
> Not frequently. Most have not been altered from the original install other
> than adding of workproduct.
Really? You must run with an iron fist or are not very observent. Take a
stoll down to some of your users Win9x machines... be suprised, I won't be .

>
>
> >Shutdowns without shutting down,
>
> Something Windows doesn't handle very well at all. A serious flaw in the
> program. And one which must frequently be resorted to when Win 9x chooses
> to lock up the keyboard and mouse or refuses to shut down.
Hmmm... how well does any OS handle a sudden improper shutdown (due to power
loss (which is what hitting the reset button is equivelent to). It's
unpredictable. Some filesystems can make this less scarey but to say it's
100% predictable and under OS control is, I think, flawed thinking.

>
> apps installed and their directories deleted instead of uninstalled.
>
> Something that should be readily fixable which it is not. This is a
> serious problem with Win9x.
Really? And how do you propose to keep an authorized user from deleting
files/directories he/she has access to and permission to? It's not a Win
problem exclusively. Give me access to your *nix box and let me just delete
some files randomly, how well do you think it'll run? How about letting me
replace some libraries with older ones without telling you and let's see how
long it runs...

>
> Joes> favorite Win 3.11 screen saver (Johnny castaway was so popular at
> one > site that we had to institute a "You got Johnny, you got no job" >
> policy). The OS gets used and abused.
>
> How come, then, the same users doing the same things they have always been
> doing don't have problems once Windows is replaced by a good operating
> system? Tell me that you idiot.
>
Because, as I wrote but you ignored choosing personal insult when fact and
logic fails you, the replacment OS doesn't let them do much or is too hard
for them to understand or they dont' have anything they can install on it
cause there aren't any apps they like written for it or available to them.
How many times does Joe Blow hear: "Hey Joe, I've got this great OS/2 game
you can play, install it man, here's the bootleg CD!" Or "Hey Marsha, here
is this really cute multi-media screen saver for Linux that I downloaded
from a geocities account."

> >And these computer "idiots" screw
> > it up and it starts to do what any OS messed with does, it crashes. And
> > your users aren't going to admit it happened after they installed print
> > shop master gold 6.5 from '97, tried it again when it complained about
> > some driver conflict error thing-a-ma-bob, then finally installed print
> > master '98 in the same directory (cause the names sounded alike so they
> > are probably the same program right?) and then when it was really
> > screwed up tried to uninstall the first one first and then when trying
> > to uninstall the second one and it wouldn't even run the uninstall so
> > they just deleted the directory and THEN called you to say: "Windows is
> > crashing in, ummmmm, WORD, yeah, WORD a lot" - you come over and say:
> > Gee, the OS sucks, my perfect users are suffering, I'll install
> > something else.
>
> A stable, properly designed operating system wouldn't be crashed by such
> things. That Windows is while others are not (or with several magnitudes
> fewer occurances) is proof that Windows is an abortion and fatally flawed
> operating system.
That is crap and you know it. Abuse the OS and it will suffer. Show me an
abuse proof OS, something that can resist unexpected changes and outright
screwed up configuration by it's users and I'll show you a pipedream. Let me
have a day at your console, let me change the case on some filenames, let me
edit some text config files, lets see your ubbeer-OS self-repair itself
(which, by the way, Windows 2000 and Office 2000 can. Windows 2000 even does
a pretty bang-up job of preventing OS corrupting changes but not 100%)


>
> > So, you go and install OS/2 or even worse, Linux on their desktop. What
> > happens. Gee, they run the one or two authorized apps cause they are
> > forced to learn them. The OS itself is so alien and hard to use and
> > unintuitive and intimidating. They have nothing to install on it
> > themselves cause no one they know uses it or has any cute
> > frog-in-the-blender games to send them. All their kids software at home
> > won't install as soon as it's put in the CD-ROM anymore and even most
> > java apps on the web fail under the slowest netscape browser they could
> > sneak in. Basically they stop abusing/using the OS and JUST run their
> > two apps (or app suites).
>
> Even if that were true which of course it is not, this is what employers
> want their people to be doing. They don't want them playing games, doing
> kids homework, etc. In fact, more than 40% of the workstations are set up
> without a floppy drive and without a CD (or with same disabled) just to
> prevent this sort of misuse of an employer's property.

Um, it is true and if you deny it than I know for a fact you've never worked
in the real world. Employees will not alway obey 100% of the rules and they
do, <gasp> goof off on company time and on company equipment. It's a fact of
life. Most workstations I am familiar with do not have a CD (well, even that
is changing) but almost all have floppies. However, downloading from the net
is there too. Or a friendly manager with his CD-ROM at lunch provides a nice
launching point. A quick share on D: drive and... bingo, everyone is playing
Casino Games vol 3 from the $4 bin at CompUSA.
>
>
>  And you think, gee, we have no more "OS
> > failures" - not realizing, it's cause they aren't doing anything but
> > running two apps instead of previously actually playing with the OS,
> > changing color depth, desktop resolution, running active desktop with
> > push channels, setting themes and generally mucking about in the OS
> > configuration. Control panel is there and it's easy to play with, let's
> > run with it!
>
> Again, a fatal flaw in Window's design. Control panel should be
> unavailable to users.
And it is if you configure Windows correctly. I can see you do not have much
experience with windows in the business environment. You can control what
users see and have access to with this thing called (Dr. Evil Quote Marks)
Policies (Dr. Evil Quote Marks)

> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12

OS/2 is up to *12* fix packs already? That is almost as bad as the number of
linux kernel revisions in a
month.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          21-Oct-99 10:52:10
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Bob Germer posted :

> On <0wDP3.13160$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 12:18 PM,
>    "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > Anyone that manages 10,000 systems and reports using "reboot" as a
> > solution for Windows problems knows nothing of debugging and probably is
> > not giving Windows a fair shake. I'm sure when a unix box and/or app
> > falls over you don't simply suggest "reboot it" (or do you?) - you fix
> > it right? Why not give the same respect to your Win boxes and see the
> > reward? Also, typically the servers get pampered while the end user
> > machines get the most generic treatment, and also the servers tend to be
> > using NT or *Nix while the end user machine are almost always Win 95 or
> > 98 that was preinstalled and the users have been hacking away on them
> > for months and the problems that surface are almost always related to
> > poor setup, configuration and/or user mismanagement/screwing around
> > and/or plain stupidity
>
> If it were possible to fix the creeping registry corruption in Win 9x, I
> would. However it is not. It is a fatal flaw in the program. Why do you
> suppose that even MICROSOFT says not to deploy Win9x in a mission critical
> envirnment? In most instances, no software has been added to the system.
> Typically, the damn thing runs for about 3 or 4 weeks without problems.
> Then random errors start to occur and continue to get worse to the point
> where rebooting 3 or more times in an 8 hour day is required.
>
> This just doesn't happen very often with ?nix, OS/2, etc.

You know Bob, in my OS/2 days, there were two apps that I held dear to
my heart because they improved my OS/2 user experience so much and
these were Unimaint and Object Desktop. I used them to backup my
desktop and ini files. Why?..... because they had a way of
spontaneously combusting or combusting after a software install and
even upon a simple reboot. Unimaint is actually a very popular app
among OS/2 users isn't it? My daughter once rendered my OS/2 system
unbootable when she hit the reset switch. Never happened to me with
windows.

Isn't the OS/2 ini file system similar in architecture to the windows
registry, so don't get holier than though around here. You'll be shot
down.

--
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
         <remove _nospam_>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]...               21-Oct-99 11:52:13
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Reality check

Message sender: [e-mail]

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

sticks and stones...

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380f268f$4$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 03:56 PM,
>    Gerben Bergman <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > | the fact that the maker of said toy operating system now thinks
himself in a
> > | position where he owns the minds of the computer idiots of the world
(so
> > | there isn't much to own, but still...);
>
> > Yes, Windows users are "idiots".
>
> The only truthful thing you have posted here!
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> Bergman is so dumb, he thinks a quarterback is change.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 15:51:13
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

>>>>>>> Curtis Bass wrote:

>>>>>>>> Ahh, the wonders of the Ambiguities of English . . .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's one problem with debate -- one has to choose words very
>>>>>>>> carefully.  To say that "X implements Y functionality" really
>>>>>>>> doesn't mean much, unless it's qualified. Does X implement
>>>>>>>> *all* of Y's funtionality, or only *some* of it?
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, the original quote can be correctly interpreted
>>>>>>>> both ways, and arguing that one interpretation is "more
>>>>>>>> correct" than the other is just as meaningless as the original
>>>>>>>> quote itself.

>>>>>>> This is essentially a correct analysis.

>>>>>> Incorrect.

>>>>> No, it is correct.

>>>> Balderdash, Lucien.

>>> Nope, it is correct.

>> Balderdash, Lucien.

>>>> I explained why it is incorrect.

>>> And your explanation is wrong.

>> I see you're pontificating once again.

> On the contrary, I'm merely pointing out that your explanation is wrong.

You can't do that by pontificating, Lucien.

>> Where's your explanation?

> It's in the "costly mistakes" thread.

That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
to "prevent" in the present situation.  Of course, I've told you that
before.

> Find it there, if you think you can.

I already know I can't, because it isn't there.

>> Incorrect, given that there is no word analogous to "prevent" in
>> "implements Java 1.2 functionality".

> Wrong.

More pontification.

> Further evidence that you were lost for the duration of the
> thread.

Even more pontification.

>>>> Meanwhile, all you did is pontificate that it is correct
>>>> "essentially".

>>> On the contrary, I'm merely countering your illogic, as always.

>> You have yet to succeed, Lucien.

> On the contrary, I did succeed in a manner that was very expensive for
> you.

A rather blatant lie.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 15:58:26
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 14:39:11
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

>>>>>>> Reread it.

>>>>>> Unnecessary; my memories of it are still quite clear.  Yours are

>>>>> Translation: Tholen refuses to reread the thread, because the
>>>>> evidence it contains was a public embarrasment for him

>>>> Incorrect.  I said it was unnecessary because my memories of it are
>>>> still quite clear.

>>> Translation: David's memory of the thread is muddled.

>> Incorrect.

> Correct.

Balderdash, Lucien.  Your translation skills are clearly lacking.

>> I said it was unnecessary because my memories of it are
>> still quite clear.

> It is necessary; your memories of the thread are muddled.

Incorrect, Lucien.  Feel free to identify any incorrect memory of the
thread, if you think you can.  Failure to do so will reinforce my
accusation that you're simply pontificating.

>> Incorrect.  There is no previous loss to you on my part, nor are there
>> any further illogical arguments about this issue from me.

> Correct.

I presume you're agreeing with the sentence of mine that immediately
precedes your response.

> Your argument was unwittingly illogical

Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

> and you lost the argument,

Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

> as was plain to all involved.

Who was involved, Lucien?  I'm asking to find out who you're trying to
speak for.

>>> Translation: David still misunderstands the substance of the thread.

>> Incorrect.  I see you still can't do any better than simple
>> pontification.

> What alleged pontification?

Yours, Lucien.

> I'm merely countering your illogic.

You can't do it with simple pontification, Lucien.

>> Irrelevant, given that I indicated that you *can* run.  I never said

> Irrelevant, given that this thread is not concerned with running or
> hiding.

Irrelevant, given that I never said it is concerned with running or
hiding.

>> that you *did* run.

> More irrelevancy.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant to the statement of yours to
which I was responding.

>> You've not countered my arguments,

> I have countered your arguments at length and with evidence.

Where is this alleged evidence, Lucien?

>> and my arguments are not uneducated

> Your arguments are profoundly uninformed.

Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.  That's rather ironic, coming
from someone uninformed about the definition of "prevent".

>> at all, Lucien.  Once again, all you're doing is pontificating.

> Again the alleged pontification.

It's not merely alleged, Lucien.  It's been identified repeatedly
in this thread.

> I'm merely countering your illogic and irrelevancies.

What alleged illogic and irrelevancies, Lucien?

>>> making no attempt to run or hide.

>> Irrelevant, given that I indicated that you can run and can't hide.

> More completely irrelevant statements, the tools of the ineffective
> advocate.

On the contrary, my statements are quite relevant to the statements
of yours they follow.  How ironic that you should refer to the tools
of the ineffective advocate, given your use of pontification.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               21-Oct-99 13:06:27
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:11
Subj: Re: [tholen] Dave Tholen and song lyrics

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >> Richard R. Klemmer writes:
>
> >>> Marty wrote:
>
> >>>> I started singing
> >>>> Bye, bye Mr. Dave Tholen guy.
> >>>> Spent a while out of my killfile
> >>>> till my humor ran dry.
> >>>> And good old Dave
> >>>> my claims he did deny,
> >>>> saying this is where the argument dies
> >>>> this is where the argument dies....
>
> >>> Marty, please stop.  I'm laughing so hard my eyes are watering. :-)
>
> >> Control yourself, Richard.
>
> > What makes you think he's not controlled, Dave?
>
> What he wrote, Marty.

Sorry, but if that doesn't work as evidence for me, it can't work as
evidence for you.  How ironic that you speak of inconsistency.

> >>> Wierd Al has nothing over you.
>
> >> On the contrary, he has plenty over Marty.
>
> > Quite a bit of money, and he's far more prolific.
>
> Glad you agree that he has plenty over you.

As he also has plenty over you, but you'd never admit that.

> >>> Thanks for the laugh.
>
> >> And the inconsistency.
>
> > So you appreciate inconsistency Dave?
>
> I indicated no appreciation, Marty.  I simply noted the existence of
> your inconsistency.

Thanks for noting the existence of my inconsistency.  And the
appreciation.

> > Well then, you're quite welcome.
>
> For what, Marty?

See below.

> > It's an honor to know that my inconsistency is appreciated by the master
> > of inconsistency himself.
>
> I indicated no appreciation, Marty.  I simply noted the existence of
> your inconsistency.

Balderdash Dave.  Your statement is gramatically impeccable.  And full
of shit.

I was simply noting the existence of shit and it has no connection to
your statement whatsoever, right?

> >>> And I'd like to point out to everyone that Marty's song lyrics weren't
> >>> overly insulting to Dave Tholen, either.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they were.  I simply noted how
> >> that Marty's killfile isn't working as intended.
>
> > Which is exactly what any relaxed, well adjusted individual would have
> > felt the need to do.
>
> Odd that you recently claimed that I'm not relaxed.  Do make up you
> mind, Marty.

Obviously your sarcasm circuits are malfunctioning again.  Perhaps if
you were more relaxed, you would have picked up on it.

> >>> As for the rest of his posts... :-)
>
> >> What about them?
>
> > See above.

note: no response

> I'd rather see your previous post, in which you wrote:

Typical evasion.

> M] [Note:  no further response on my part is forthcoming on this matter]
>
> and to which I responded:
>
> DT] Famous last words.
>
> Once again, my expectation was fulfilled, because here you are, posting
> another response on this matter.

Have I responded to that branch of the thread?  If I have, please show
me where because I'd like to read what my next song would be.

Speaking of fulfilling expectations, you're getting quite boring to deal
with.  Try to mix it up a bit so you're not so predictable.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 17:21:05
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:11
Subj: Re: [tholen] Dave Tholen and song lyrics

From: [e-mail]

Marty writes:

>>>> Richard R. Klemmer writes:

>>>>> Marty wrote:

>>>>>> I started singing
>>>>>> Bye, bye Mr. Dave Tholen guy.
>>>>>> Spent a while out of my killfile
>>>>>> till my humor ran dry.
>>>>>> And good old Dave
>>>>>> my claims he did deny,
>>>>>> saying this is where the argument dies
>>>>>> this is where the argument dies....

>>>>> Marty, please stop.  I'm laughing so hard my eyes are watering. :-)

>>>> Control yourself, Richard.

>>> What makes you think he's not controlled, Dave?

>> What he wrote, Marty.

> Sorry, but if that doesn't work as evidence for me, it can't work as
> evidence for you.

Incorrect.  It does work as evidence for me.

> How ironic that you speak of inconsistency.

What's allegedly ironic about it, Marty?

>>>>> Wierd Al has nothing over you.

>>>> On the contrary, he has plenty over Marty.

>>> Quite a bit of money, and he's far more prolific.

>> Glad you agree that he has plenty over you.

> As he also has plenty over you, but you'd never admit that.

Irrelevant, as no comparison was being made between me and Al.

>>>>> Thanks for the laugh.

>>>> And the inconsistency.

>>> So you appreciate inconsistency Dave?

>> I indicated no appreciation, Marty.  I simply noted the existence of
>> your inconsistency.

> Thanks for noting the existence of my inconsistency.

You're welcome.

> And the appreciation.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I indicated no
appreciation; I simply noted the existence of your inconsistency.

>>> Well then, you're quite welcome.

>> For what, Marty?

> See below.

Below doesn't indicate why you said that, Marty.

>>> It's an honor to know that my inconsistency is appreciated by the master
>>> of inconsistency himself.

>> I indicated no appreciation, Marty.  I simply noted the existence of
>> your inconsistency.

> Balderdash Dave.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> Your statement is gramatically impeccable.

Irrelevant, Marty, as the issue was not grammatical correctness.

> And full of shit.

Prove it, if you think you can, Marty.  Why did you write above:

M] Thanks for noting the existence of my inconsistency.

> I was simply noting the existence of shit

Without substantiation.

> and it has no connection to your statement whatsoever, right?

You allege that it does, but you have yet to demonstrate that.

>>>>> And I'd like to point out to everyone that Marty's song lyrics weren't
>>>>> overly insulting to Dave Tholen, either.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they were.  I simply noted how
>>>> that Marty's killfile isn't working as intended.

>>> Which is exactly what any relaxed, well adjusted individual would have
>>> felt the need to do.

>> Odd that you recently claimed that I'm not relaxed.  Do make up you
>> mind, Marty.

> Obviously your sarcasm circuits are malfunctioning again.

Illogical, given that no "circuits" are involved, Marty.

> Perhaps if you were more relaxed, you would have picked up on it.

More relaxed than what, Marty?

>>>>> As for the rest of his posts... :-)

>>>> What about them?

>>> See above.

> note: no response

Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?  My response
appears immediately below.  Count the levels of indentation.

>> I'd rather see your previous post, in which you wrote:

> Typical evasion.

Incorrect.

>> M] [Note:  no further response on my part is forthcoming on this matter]
>>
>> and to which I responded:
>>
>> DT] Famous last words.
>>
>> Once again, my expectation was fulfilled, because here you are, posting
>> another response on this matter.

> Have I responded to that branch of the thread?

Ah, I see you're now resorting to a semantic argument over "this matter"
being different from "that branch".

> If I have, please show me where because I'd like to read what my next
> song would be.

Illogical, given that postings do not need to include a song to be
considered a "further response".

> Speaking of fulfilling expectations, you're getting quite boring to
> deal with.

Obviously not, given your recent rash of responses that demonstrate the
failure of your alleged killfile.

> Try to mix it up a bit so you're not so predictable.

You haven't been able to predict my responses, Marty.  I predicted that
you would continue to respond, however, when I wrote "Famous last words".
I suggest you comtemplate your own predictability.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               21-Oct-99 12:19:04
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:12
Subj: Re: [tholen] Dave Tholen and song lyrics

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Richard R. Klemmer writes:
>
> > Marty wrote:
>
> >> I started singing
> >> Bye, bye Mr. Dave Tholen guy.
> >> Spent a while out of my killfile
> >> till my humor ran dry.
> >> And good old Dave
> >> my claims he did deny,
> >> saying this is where the argument dies
> >> this is where the argument dies....
>
> > Marty, please stop.  I'm laughing so hard my eyes are watering. :-)
>
> Control yourself, Richard.

What makes you think he's not controlled, Dave?

> > Wierd Al has nothing over you.
>
> On the contrary, he has plenty over Marty.

Quite a bit of money, and he's far more prolific.

> > Thanks for the laugh.
>
> And the inconsistency.

So you appreciate inconsistency Dave?  Well then, you're quite welcome.
It's an honor to know that my inconsistency is appreciated by the master
of inconsistency himself.

> > And I'd like to point out to everyone that Marty's song lyrics weren't
> > overly insulting to Dave Tholen, either.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they were.  I simply noted how
> that Marty's killfile isn't working as intended.

Which is exactly what any relaxed, well adjusted individual would have
felt the need to do.

> > As for the rest of his posts... :-)
>
> What about them?

See above.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 16:20:08
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>> You just want to talk about a different subject, because you, as
>>>>>>> usual, jumped into an argument about a subject which you are
>>>>>>> ignorant of.

>>>>>> Incorrect, given that I haven't jumped into any argument about a
subject
>>>>>> with which I'm ignorant.

>>>>> Then why did you claim that JDK 1.1.8 implements Java 2 security classes
>>>>> when it does not?

>>>> Prove that it does not, Mike.  I've provided a reference to my evidence.
>>>> All you've done is pontificate, as usual.

>>> IBM's additional security classes are in com.ibm.* packages.

>> We're talking about JDK 1.1.8, Mike.

> I know, Dave; and in IBM's JDK 1.1.8, IBM implemented additional
> security classes in the com.ibm.* packages.

And what is the relevance, Mike?

> What part of that didn't you understand?

The relevance, Mike.

>>> Those packages are not in JDK 1.2.

>> IBM hasn't released a JDK 1.2 for OS/2, Mike.

> No duh.  But the fact that the so-called "Java 2 security classes" are
> not in Java 2, means they aren't Java 2 security classes.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail] indicates otherwise,
Mike.

>>> The classes IBM added are not Java 2 security classes,

>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail] states otherwise, Mike.

> Irrelevent.

On the contrary, the evidence is quite relevant, Mike.

> The message is wrong.

Prove it, if you think you can, Mike.

>>> they are proprietary classes from by IBM.

>> From by?

> They are proprietary classes from IBM.  They are not included in
> Java 2.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail] indicates otherwise,
Mike.

>>> If you refer to those classes from your program, your program will fail
>>> on a reference implementation of Java 2.

>> Prove it, Mike.

> Look at the contents of rt.jar in a reference implementation of Java 2.
> There are no security classes in the com.ibm.* package.

MT] in IBM's JDK 1.1.8, IBM implemented additional security classes in the
MT] com.ibm.* packages.

Do make up your mind, Mike.

> The classes IBM included in their version of JDK 1.1.8 are not part of
> Java 2.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail] indicates otherwise,
Mike.

> Any reference to those classes will fail, since the classes will not be
> found.

Prove it, if you think you can, Mike.

> That's how Java works, Dave; if you refer to a missing class,
> you get an exception.

The key word here is "if".  Prove that the classes are missing, Mike.

>>> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.

>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

> I'm not running the JDK, Dave,

It figures.

> I'm looking at the contents.

Wouldn't be the first time you've looked at something and missed it.
I guess it makes up for the times you see things that aren't there.

> The classes are in jar files, which are easily read on non-OS/2
> platforms.  You'd know this if you actually knew something about
> the subject at hand.

I know what IBM wrote, Mike, and they are more familiar with their
product than you are.

>>>>> Then why did you claim Swing is part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8
>>>>> when it is not?

>>>> Prove that it does not, Mike.  I've provided a reference to my evidence.
>>>> All you've done is pontificate, as usual.

>>> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.

>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

> See above.  I see you have no counter-evidence.

On the contrary, I have
Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]

>>> The Swing classes are not included.  You can download them separately,

>> Is that the argument you intend to hang your hat on, Mike???  IBM states
>> that the functionality was implemented in 1.1.8, and you claim it wasn't
>> because IBM split the download into multiple components?

> I claimed that Swing isn't part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.  It isn't.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail] indicates otherwise,
Mike.

> It's an add-on, just like it is for other 1.1.x JDKs.

Ah, the old semantic argument.  Exactly what difference are you trying
to make between being included and being an add-on, Mike?

>>> just as you can download them separately for the reference 1.1.x JDKs.

>> Are they identical, Mike?

> They provide the same functionality and they implement the same API.

I askedif they are identical, Mike.  A simple yes or no would suffice.

>>>>> Why are you claiming Swing is "Java 1.2 functionality" when you earlier
>>>>> claimed that only features introduced with Java 1.2 qualify?

>>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]

>>> Irrelevent.  Swing was introduced before Java 1.2.

>> Are you claiming that Swing for 1.1 is identical to Swing for 1.2, Mike?

> No,

Ah ha.  I suspected that you'd engage in that sort of semantic argument.

> I'm stating that Swing was introduced before Java 1.2,

The 1.2 version of Swing was not introduced before 1.2, Mike.

> which proves that your claim is incorrect.

It does no such thing, Mike.  My claim is that 1.1.8 implements 1.2
functionality.  An implementation of Swing for 1.2 in 1.1.8 says
nothing about when Swing was introduced.

>>>>> Because you are ignorant of the subject at hand.  As usual.

>>>> How ironic, coming from the person who is ignorant of:
>>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]

>>> No irony involved, Dave, since that article is not the subject
>>> at hand.

>> On the contrary, it's ironic indeed, given that you were talking about
>> ignorance of the subject, and the subject is the Java 1.2 functionality
>> that was implemented in 1.1.8, which the referenced article just
>> happens to describe, and about which you are ignorant.

> The reference article doesn't describe that at all.

How would you know, Mike, given that you haven't even been able to find
the article?

>>> As I mentioned, I couldn't find the message you indicate.
>>> Repost it, if you wish to refer to it.

>> Here's the relevant piece, Mike:
>>
>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security
>> ] classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's
>> ] implementation of the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.

> I'll note that the only reference in "the relevant piece" to "Java 2"
> is "Java 2 security classes".

IBM referred to Java 2 functionality in the plural, Mike, and the
sentence above refers to more than one item.

> RMI over IIOP, COMM, and Swing are not referred to as "Java 2
> functionality".

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> In fact, the only piece that might be "Java 2 functionality" is "will
> include Java 2 security classes."  Interestingly, it's written in future
> tense.

That's because IBM is talking about the final release, Mike.  The
article also states:

] the Version 1.1.8 Preview is available today for early testing.

Read the evidence, Mike, before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

> Now that JDK 1.1.8 is actually available, it's clear that
> "Java 2 security classes" are *not* provided.

Just because you can't find them doesn't mean they're not provided,
Mike.  Did you bother to download the preview when it was "actually
available"?

>>> In any case, I'll just note that I've referred to the actual contents
>>> of the JDK in question, and have provided, as evidence, references to
>>> and quotes from Sun's official web site.

>> Inadequate, Mike.

> On the contrary, the contents of the JDK disprove your claims that it
> includes the items you claim,

Wouldn't be the first time you've looked at something and missed it.
I guess it makes up for the times you see things that aren't there.

> and the quotes from Sun's web site prove that the items you mention
> don't count as "Java 2 functionality".

They do no such thing, Mike.

>>> You, on the other hand, present a reference to a newsgroup
>>> article,

>> Provided by IBM, Mike.

> Tell me, Dave, when was the article in question posted?

June 12, Mike.  See how far out of date you are?

> Then tell me when JDK 1.1.8 was released.

The preview was available the same day, Mike.  That's why it says

] the Version 1.1.8 Preview is available today for early testing.

Ignorance of the evidence will get you nowhere, Mike.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 16:25:02
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:12
Subj: Re: [tholen] Dave Tholen and song lyrics

From: [e-mail]

Marty writes:

>> Richard R. Klemmer writes:

>>> Marty wrote:

>>>> I started singing
>>>> Bye, bye Mr. Dave Tholen guy.
>>>> Spent a while out of my killfile
>>>> till my humor ran dry.
>>>> And good old Dave
>>>> my claims he did deny,
>>>> saying this is where the argument dies
>>>> this is where the argument dies....

>>> Marty, please stop.  I'm laughing so hard my eyes are watering. :-)

>> Control yourself, Richard.

> What makes you think he's not controlled, Dave?

What he wrote, Marty.

>>> Wierd Al has nothing over you.

>> On the contrary, he has plenty over Marty.

> Quite a bit of money, and he's far more prolific.

Glad you agree that he has plenty over you.

>>> Thanks for the laugh.

>> And the inconsistency.

> So you appreciate inconsistency Dave?

I indicated no appreciation, Marty.  I simply noted the existence of
your inconsistency.

> Well then, you're quite welcome.

For what, Marty?

> It's an honor to know that my inconsistency is appreciated by the master
> of inconsistency himself.

I indicated no appreciation, Marty.  I simply noted the existence of
your inconsistency.

>>> And I'd like to point out to everyone that Marty's song lyrics weren't
>>> overly insulting to Dave Tholen, either.

>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they were.  I simply noted how
>> that Marty's killfile isn't working as intended.

> Which is exactly what any relaxed, well adjusted individual would have
> felt the need to do.

Odd that you recently claimed that I'm not relaxed.  Do make up you
mind, Marty.

>>> As for the rest of his posts... :-)

>> What about them?

> See above.

I'd rather see your previous post, in which you wrote:

M] [Note:  no further response on my part is forthcoming on this matter]

and to which I responded:

DT] Famous last words.

Once again, my expectation was fulfilled, because here you are, posting
another response on this matter.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               21-Oct-99 12:24:25
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Balderdash, Lucien.  Your translation skills are clearly lacking.

> Incorrect, Lucien.  Feel free to identify any incorrect memory of the
> thread, if you think you can.  Failure to do so will reinforce my
> accusation that you're simply pontificating.

> I presume you're agreeing with the sentence of mine that immediately
> precedes your response.

> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

> Who was involved, Lucien?  I'm asking to find out who you're trying to
> speak for.

> You can't do it with simple pontification, Lucien.

> Irrelevant, given that I never said it is concerned with running or
> hiding.

> On the contrary, it's quite relevant to the statement of yours to
> which I was responding.

> Where is this alleged evidence, Lucien?

> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.  That's rather ironic, coming
> from someone uninformed about the definition of "prevent".

> On the contrary, my statements are quite relevant to the statements
> of yours they follow.  How ironic that you should refer to the tools
> of the ineffective advocate, given your use of pontification.

Spoken like a true normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]               21-Oct-99 09:40:10
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:12
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:11:11 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:

>
>
>Kim Cheung wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:04:33 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Kim Cheung wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I might not have agreed with Brad on the way he handled the aftermath
but
>> >> everything he reported was accurate - from his point of view.
>> >
>> >Do you have some knowledge that this is the case or is this just your
>> >opinion.
>>
>> No, I don't speculate.   I HAVE direct knowledge.     Read my words
>> carefully: everything he reported was accurate - from his point of view.
>
>Would you care to share your direct knowledge

No.   That would serve no useful purpose and would not benefit OS/2.

>or is it...confidential?

We are not a dis-interested party.    All OS/2 ISVs benefits from a new
client.    As a result, it is to our best interest to know the truth behind
the scene.

>
>>
>> >At the VERY LEAST, Wardell looks pretty eager to take "NO" for
>> >an answer.
>>
>> That's incorrect.   Brad wanted the new client.
>
>Well, perhaps he did.  But his actions do not support this.  He puts a
>statement out on the Stardock news server, which has
>the *tone of finality* to it, in which he says:
>

<clip>

>Now, in my opinion, any normal businessman would call up IBM and say
>> >

He DID do all that he could.

>Another remarkable thing is Serenity System's suggestion that THEY are
>negotiating with IBM for a client deal.  Now, if IBM did not like the
>idea at
>all, why should they even talk to ANOTHER company about the same thing?
>This only makes sense if they are willing to consider a Warp Client
>licensing deal but, for some reason, not with Stardock.  Again, in this
>case, if I were Brad Wardell I would have worked to find out what the
>specific objection to Stardock's proposal was by IBM and worked to
>mitigate these concerns.

Special bid for OS/2 happens all the time.   Not all of them sees the light
of the day.

We have an entirely different focus.   We don't cater to end-user desktops -
our business model works with channel partners, VARs, and consultants.   If
one of our customer sees a business case supporting end-users, we do not
discourage them.

>> >>   The trouble
>> >> is, of course, in business, it's not as simple as black and white, some
>> >> times.    So, his version is accurate, Steven King's version is
accurate, IBM
>> >> spokesman's version is accurate.   Nobody lied.
>> >
>> >Really?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>So you are saying that "the call" really was made?  Maybe it was a phone
>call for takeout pizza?   Certainly Brad was truthful when he said
>"there will be no new client from Stardock..."

That's correct - and no, it wasn't for takeout pizza.

>After all, this might be
>his decision and he should know.  As far as the stuff about '...IBM has
>indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their
>own',

That wasn't what he said (nor IBM).   The keyword continues to be "at this
time".

>Brad clarified that in an interview on 9/30/99 when he said:
>
>"IBM has never stated that they will never do another new version of
>OS/2 nor would I expect
>them to."

That's not what I read.    I did not see the word "never" from his interview.

>
>So you are right, no one lied.

Absolutely.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 17:04:17
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Marty writes:

>> Balderdash, Lucien.  Your translation skills are clearly lacking.
>>
>> Incorrect, Lucien.  Feel free to identify any incorrect memory of the
>> thread, if you think you can.  Failure to do so will reinforce my
>> accusation that you're simply pontificating.
>>
>> I presume you're agreeing with the sentence of mine that immediately
>> precedes your response.
>>
>> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.
>>
>> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.
>>
>> Who was involved, Lucien?  I'm asking to find out who you're trying to
>> speak for.
>>
>> You can't do it with simple pontification, Lucien.
>>
>> Irrelevant, given that I never said it is concerned with running or
>> hiding.
>>
>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant to the statement of yours to
>> which I was responding.
>>
>> Where is this alleged evidence, Lucien?
>>
>> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.  That's rather ironic, coming
>> from someone uninformed about the definition of "prevent".
>>
>> On the contrary, my statements are quite relevant to the statements
>> of yours they follow.  How ironic that you should refer to the tools
>> of the ineffective advocate, given your use of pontification.

> Spoken like a true normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual.

Do make up your mind, Marty.

Spoken like someone with a broken killfile, with nothing better to do
than resume his own version of an "infantile game".


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  21-Oct-99 13:01:28
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:12
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Uh, something claiming to be a <[e-mail]> tholened and tholened
to come up with:

> > Be careful... you might have Professor Tholen give you a line-by-line
> > rebuttal when you quote song lyrics.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

Haw!  You *must* be kidding, Tholen, either that or you're as dumb as they
come!


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 17:02:05
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:12
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail]

Roberto Alsina writes:

>>>>> I think I will indulge in some tholenisms, just for the bad old
>>>>> times' sake.

>>>> I wish you would, like indulging in some logic, but you keep
>>>> missing the mark by a wide margin.

>>> I'm afraid tholenism and logic are incompatible,

>> Incorrect.

> Tholenism is a word I just invented.

Incorrect.

> I know the definition way better than you do,

You're erroneously presupposing that you just invented the word.

> as far as that definition exists only in my head

Incorrect, given that others have used it.

> and I have not shared it with you yet.

Irrelevant, given that you're not the only person to have used it.

>>> so I had to choose.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that they are incompatiable.

> You are presuming you know what tholenism is.

I do.

>>>>>>> You were not nominated because of the fact you present, but
>>>>>>> because of another.

>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what motivated
>>>>>> you to submit a nomination.

>>>>> The fact for which you were nominated is not the fact that
>>>>> motivated me to nominate you.

>>>> You just contradicted yourself.  You just said, in effect, that
>>>> your motivation was not what motivated you.

>>> No, you just didn't understand me.

>> Incorrect.  I understood what you wrote.  If you didn't mean what you
>> wrote, that's your problem, not mine.

> I wrote what I meant.

Incorrect, unless of course you meant to contradict yourself.

> If you fail to read what I write and understand what it means it's
> your problem.

I understood exactly what you wrote, Roberto.

>>> I don't nominate every kook I meet.

>> Obviously, given that you didn't nominate yourself.

>>> I nominate kooks I meet and dislike.

>> Is that why you didn't nominate yourself, because you like yourself?

> Your short term memory is failing you.

Incorrect, Roberto.

> I already said several times I don't believe I am a kook.

You also claimed that one's self isn't in a position to make that
evaluation.

> But yes, I do like myself, so I fail both criteria.

Funny that you're now relying on self-evaluation.

>>> You were nominated because of the fact that you are (IMHO) a kook

>> Too bad you can't prove it.

> I can prove that it is my opinion.

Your opinion is irrelevant, Roberto.  The facts are relevant.

>>> and that I don't like you.

>> I'm not surprised, given how badly my evidence made you look.

> Nice to see you know I don't like you.

I didn't say that I knew it, Roberto.  I said I wasn't surprised.

> You are assuming motives that are wrong, though.

You mean you didn't mind being made to look bad, Roberto?

>>> Your nomination, however says "this guy is a kook because he argues
>>> with eliza" (not an actual quote).

>> Which is a lie.

> When I made the nomination it was my belief that you argued with Eliza.

Your belief is irrelevant, Roberto.  The facts are relevant.

> Saying what one believes to be true can not be a lie.

Incorrect.  I suggest you consult Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.

> It can be a mistake.

And a lie.

> In fact I still believe you argued with Eliza,

Your belief is irrelevant, Roberto.  The facts are relevant.

> and that you are lying when you say you didn't.

Your belief is irrelevant, Roberto.  The facts are relevant.

>>> The things mentioned in your nomination are just a subset of the
>>> personal reasons I had to nominate you,

>> You didn't have to do anything, Roberto.

>>> and therefore, not the same.

>> Not the same as what, Roberto?

> Not the same as "the personal reasons I had to nominate you" Dave.

You didn't have to do anything, Roberto.

> Your reading skills seem to have gone downhill these two years.

Prove it, if you think you can, Roberto.

>>>>> Your comprehension problems continue.

>>>> How ironic, considering the statement that you just wrote.

>>> And that you completely failed to understand, obviously.

>> Incorrect.  I understood what you wrote.  If you didn't mean what you
>> wrote, that's your problem, not mine.

> Deja vu.

It isn't the first time you've had that problem.

>>>>>> I'm simply noting the irony that you didn't nominate yourself,
>>>>>> after making such a boneheaded mistake and continuing to insist
>>>>>> that you were right, even after the source of the error was
>>>>>> clearly identified.

>>>>> Being wrong is not kooky.

>>>> Insisting that you're right, even long after the source of the
>>>> error was identified, is.

>>> Nope.

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?

> I base that claim in that the definition of kook I accept doesn't
> include that as one of the kook's definig features.

How convenient.  Exactly what does your definition include, Roberto?

>>>>> Insisting on mistakes is not kooky.

>>>> Insisting that you're right, even long after the source of the
>>>> error was identified, is.

>>> I said "A" and you said, "No, not A".

>> My evidence consisted of far more than the equivalent of "No, not A",
>> Roberto.

> Your reading is abysmal.

Prove it, if you think you can, Roberto.

> "A" is "Insisting on mistakes is not kooky.".
> Your "Not A" is "Insisting that you're right, even long after the
> source of the error was identified, is.".

Illogical, given that "A" isn't the same in your two instances.

>>> Great argument strategy.

>> Too bad that's not the argument strategy that I used.  I actually
>> pointed to the dates spanned by the articles you referenced.

> You are confusing that 1997 argument with the one happening here, Dave.

Not at all, Roberto.

>>>>> Kooky reasons

>>>> What's allegedly "kooky" about the reasons, Roberto?

>>> I'm afraid if you can't see it,

>> I can't see what isn't there to be seen, Roberto.

> That's just a subset of the things you can't see.

Prove that it is there to be seen, Roberto.

> You can't see protons either.

That depends on your definition of "see".  It's also irrelevant.

> That doesn't imply protons are not there to be seen.

I see you've got the logic backwards.  I'm not surprised.

> Therefore, that you can't see what's kooky about the reasons is not
> proof that there is nothing kooky about the reasons.

That there aren't reasons does explain why I can't see them, however.
See what I mean about you having it backwards?

> That's basic logic,

Too bad you've got it backwards.

> you should have seen it coming.

I expect such logical errors from you, Roberto.

> You are rusty.

Incorrect, Roberto.

>>> you can't understand the explanation.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that there is a logical explanation.

> I know there is one.

Feel free to present your knowledge, if you think you can, Roberto.

> I just believe you are uncapable of understanding it.

What you believe is irrelevant, Roberto; what you can prove is
relevant.

>>>>> for a kook.

>>>> Such as yourself.

>>> I actually meant you, (that was obvious for every careful reader).

>> Too bad you can't prove it.

> Prove what?

That I'm a "kook".

> That I meant you?

See above, Roberto.

> I know what I meant better than you do.

I would hope so.

>>>>> Why should I nominate a person I do not believe to be a kook?

>>>> Your beliefs are irrelevant, Roberto.  Your actions are relevant.

>>> So, you are saying I should nominate a person I don't believe to
>>> be a kook?

>> Still having reading comprehension problems, Roberto?  I'm saying
>> that your actions are relevant.

> And here I was, believing that you were in some way responding to my
> question.

I did respond to your question, Roberto, correcting your miscomprehension
of what I wrote.  You asked what I was saying, and I told you what I was
saying.

> I made a simple question.

Based on a miscomprehension of what I wrote.

> You can answer by yes or no.

Here's a simple question for you, Roberto.  You can answer by yes or no.
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

One of these days you may finally realize that not all questions that
can be answered by yes or no should be answered by yes or no.

> Or you can give a yes/no and explanation.

I see you still haven't figured out that a yes or no is not always
an appropriate answer.

> What you gave was a non-response.

Incorrect.  I corrected your miscomprehension of what I wrote.

>>> but I was not the one that argued with Eliza,

>> Neither did I.

> So you say. Prove it, if you think you can.

Simple:  look at the addresses of the postings to which I responded
and note how they coincide with real individuals who have contributed
to this newsgroup.

>>> and lated denied it, Dave.

>> Why shouldn't I deny something that didn't happen, Roberto?

> Why should you?

Because it didn't happen, Roberto.

>>> Funny that you claim that my saying "Dave is a kook" is "truth by
>>> proclamation" but your "I am not a kook" is not.

>> Nothing funny about it.  I've referred to actual actions on your
>> part.  You have not.

> I referred to your argument with Eliza.

What alleged argument with Eliza, Roberto?

> That was an actual action on your part.

Incorrect, Roberto.

>>>>>>> Fear not, you're still a kook in my heart.

>>>>>> What you have in your heart is irrelevant to me.

>>>>> But not to me,

>>>> Then start your own newsgroup and post articles to which you can
>>>> respond.

>>> If we apply the same standard to you, the world would be a better
>>> place quickly.

>> Illogical, given that USENET doesn't extend to the entire world
>> population.

> Improving a part of the world improves the world as a whole,

It only improves a part, Roberto.

> in the same way that curing your hand improves your health.

Curing your hand won't get rid of the common cold, Roberto.

>>>>> Anyway, that was not the only time you argued with a computer
>>>>> program.

>>>> I've never argued with a computer program.

>> Note:  no response.

> Ok, here you have it: yes you did.

Balderdash, Roberto.

>>>>> Do you authorize me to show here the other one?

>>>> There is no "other one".

>>> Then authorize me to show the exchange you had with my email
>>> bouncer.

>> I had no argument with your email bouncer, Roberto.

> Then authorize me to show the exchange that you say was not an argument.

Do you even know what an argument is, Roberto?

> If you have nothing to hide, why hide?

I'm not hiding, Roberto.  The fact that you send email, but don't want
to receive responses, is yet another piece of evidence for your
bizarre behavior.  Do you deny sending me email?

>>>> I respond to postings made by people.
>>>> Some of those people post responses using personal attacks; some
>>>> post responses using deletion tactics to avoid dealing with certain
>>>> issues; some post responses generated by computer programs; I deal
>>>> with all those responses.

>>> A posting generated by a computer program without human intervention
>>> is hardly a posting made by "people", Dave.

>> The Eliza responses involved human intervention, Roberto, a fact that
>> you still don't realize.

> And there was no human intervention when you argued with my bouncer,
> Dave,

You're erroneously presupposing the existence of some argument, Roberto.

> and that was the specific instance I was talking about,

You're still erroneously presupposing the existence of some argument,
Roberto.

> a fact that you didn't comprehend.

Incorrect, Roberto.

> There is also that pathetic thing about writing faked
> automatic responses imitating the output of a program...

Now what are you talking about, Roberto?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 18:10:26
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:12
Subj: (1/3) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail]

For the record, I want to note that two rounds ago, Alsina deleted
the following from his follow-up:

DT] Then why choose 134 rather than "a hundred"?  Tell me, Roberto, if you
DT] were to walk to work and tell your fellow workers that you walked
DT] directly from home to work and that you walked 36.2 kilometers, but
DT] those workers were able to determine that in fact you lived 3.1
DT] kilometers away, would you continue to insist for many days that you
DT] did indeed walk 36.2 kilometers, only to change your story a couple of
DT] years later that you only meant that it "felt like" 36.2 kilometers?
DT]
DT] Tell me, Roberto, do you accuse someone in a restaurant of drinking
DT] 26.7 bottles of beer, only to have his table mates demonstrate that he
DT] in fact had only consumed 2 bottles of beer, while you continue to
DT] insist that he had really downed 26.7 bottles, only to change your story
DT] a couple of years later that you only meant it "looked like" 26.7
DT] bottles?


Roberto Alsina writes:

>>>>> I am part of the people.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that nothing was said about "part of the people"
>>>> by me.

>>> The day only what you say is relevant, is the day I kill myself.

>> Non sequitur, and not even grammatical.  You should have either
>> admitted to the irrelevance, or demonstrated the alleged relevance.

> I'll rephrase. The day you are the judge of what is relevant and
> what isn't relevant, that is the day I will kill myself.

Relevance can be determined logically, Roberto.  Judges aren't
needed.

> This is not a court.

If it were, you'd be laughed out of it, Roberto.  Or worse, fined for
pursuing a frivolous matter.

> There are no standard rules for relevance.

You don't need rules, Roberto, just a bit of logic.

> Since I don't agree that you are the one that has to decide about
> the relevance of what I write, your "it's irrelevant" comments
> are simply pointless,

Incorrect.  There is a point to my comments about your irrelevant
remarks.  I suggest you comprehend that point.

> and I will ignore them if I feel like it.

How convenient.  In fairness, I guess I can ignore your so-called
"points" if I feel like it.

>>>>> Now, if I am part of the people, let me show you why what you said
>>>>> makes no sense:

>>>> Irrelevant, given that nothing was said about "part of the people"
>>>> by me.

>>> I am part of the peopl, wether you say it or not.

>> You're also a part of the male sex, which is something else I hadn't
>> said previously.  Doesn't make it relevant.

> Who cares if you think it's relevant or not.

You should, if you want to try and build a coherent argument.

> That only matters to you, in your own head.

Incorrect, given that it matters to anyone trying to make a coherent
argument.

>>> Therefore, "Roberto is part of the people" is a useful hypothesis,
>>> wether you said it or not.

>> How is something irrelevant "a useful hypothesis"?

> It is a useful hypothesis because it is true

It is also true that the Sun is a main sequence star, but it has
absolutely no usefulness in this context.

> and helps me make my point.

Irrelevant points won't do you any good, Roberto.

>>>>> My claim:
>>>>> -----
>>>>> Well, Dave, [Your KOTM nomination] should show you that you are
>>>>> not universally seen as the beacon of pure reason and thought you
>>>>> apparently think you are.

>>>> I see you're inserting bracketed material to change the chronology
>>>> of what occurred.

>>> Nope.

>> Incorrect.

>>> You are attributing intention without basis,

>> On the contrary, I have a basis for attributing intention, and I
>> clearly explained that basis.

> I don't see that.

Try rereading what I wrote, Roberto.

> What is your basis for attributing intention to my insertion of
> bracketed material? Be specific.

DT] I see you're inserting bracketed material to change the chronology
DT] of what occurred.

>>>> Originally, you used "that", and the immediately
>>>> preceding material to which you were responding involved your
>>>> erroneous accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day.

>>> I know wat I was talking about better than you , Dave.

>> Doesn't matter if you can't properly express your knowledge in
>> writing Roberto.

> If I can't express myself properly, that doesn't mean that what you
> believe I meant is what I meant.

It does mean that I can take what you've written as being representative
of what you meant.

>>> I was talking about your KOTM nomination,

>> Then you were non sequitur, Roberto.

> I don't think so.

What you think is irrelevant, Roberto.

> Then again, who cares?

You should, if you want to build a coherent argument.

>>> which was the subject of the thread before you threw your
>>> non-sequitur.

>> The subject of the paragraph to which you responded was your erroneous
>> accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day, Roberto.  I
>> wasn't the one who was non sequitur.  That was you.

> You started talking about 134 articles a day when the subject was
> your KOTM nomination.

Specifically, the nomination made by *you*.  I demonstrated that you
could be dismissed as an unreasonable person.  When a witness in a
court can be shown to not know what they're talking about, the
credibility of the testimony is called into question.  Likewise,
your claims can be called into question based on the erroneous
accusation you made, and the way you insisted it was correct, long
after it had been shown to be incorrect.  You're not a credible
witness.  You can be dismissed, along with your nomination.

> I was simply RETURNING to the subject before your non sequitur.

What alleged non sequitur, Roberto?

>>>>> -----
>>>>> Let's break that into pieces:

>>>> Gee, some people like to complain about sentences being broken into
>>>> pieces.  Where were you when they did so?

>>> There are many ways to break.

>> You didn't answer my question.

> It's one of those tholenisms I mentioned.

Incorrect.  It's an evasion.

>>> I like the way I broke my statement.

>> Irrelevant.  You still didn't answer my question.

> Ok, I will answer: I was in the city of Santa Fe, Argentina, at least
> at the time of several of those complains, in 1997.

How would you know when "several of those complains" were made,
Roberto?

>>>>> [a] I say you apparently think you are a beacon of pure reason and
>>>>> thought.

>>>> On what basis do you say what I appear to think, Roberto?

>>> It appears to me, Dave.

>> What is the basis for that appearance, Roberto?

> My personal experience reading what you write in this newsgroup.

Your reading skills have been called into question, Roberto.  You
clearly didn't properly read the date range involved in your average
postings per day calculation.

>>> That should be obvious.

>> What appears to you is not obvious, Roberto.  Perhaps you have a
>> history of seeing things that don't really exist.

> It should be obvious that I am talking about what appears to me.

Whether it really exists or not.

> It is not obvious that it agrees with reality, so my hypothetical
> hallucinations don't really have any effect on the obviousness.

It does have an effect on the validity of your argument, Roberto.

>>>>> [b] I say that since I don't see you as one, you are not
>>>>> universally seen as one.

>>>> And what are your reasons for not seeing me that way, Roberto?

>>> Personal experience.

>> What are these alleged experiences, Roberto?

> Reading what you write.

Your reading skills have been called into question, Roberto.  You
clearly didn't properly read the date range involved in your average
postings per day calculation.

>>>> Because
>>>> I noted a bit of history involving an embarrassing error of yours?

>>> Not specifically.

>> That's the observation of mine to which you responded, Roberto.

> Yes. That has no bearing on my answer.

Are you saying that you wrote a non sequitur?

>>>> "Well, Roberto, that should show you that you are not universally
>>>> seen as the non-kook you apparently think you are."

>>> If you see me as a kook, then yes, I am not universally seen as a
>>> non-kook. Hardly a challenging statement, just like mine.

>> But I have more substance to point at than you do.

> What substance?

Your botched math.  Your failure to admit the error for a very long
time after the source of the error had been clearly identified.
Your refusal to accept email responses from people to whom you've
sent email.  Your illogical arguments, such as the one that follows.

> Your protruding belly button?

Illogical.

>>>>> Since [a] is not a statement of fact but of my personal opinion,
>>>>> you can not deny it.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that I did not deny it.

>>> I am not saying you denied it, I am saying you can't deny it.

>> On the contrary, I am quite capable of denying it.  That doesn't mean
>> I exercised that capability.

> Can you deny it?

The capability to deny it exists, Roberto.  That doesn't mean I'm
exercising that capability.  Didn't I just tell you that?

> How can you deny an opinion?

By saying so, Roberto.

> Would you say "no, you don't believe that" "no that is not your
> opinion" ?

It's not a matter of "would", Roberto, but rather "could", which
indicates the capability.

>>>> I didn't confirm it either.

>>> I didn't say you confirmed it, I said you can't deny it.

>> On the contrary, I am quite capable of denying it.  That doesn't mean
>> I exercised that capability.

> Show me how you would deny it.

It's not a matter of "would", Roberto, but rather "could", which
indicates the capability.

>>>> I simply noted that your statement was illogical as a response to
>>>> what I had written.

>>> Pot, kettle, black.

>> On what basis do you say that, Roberto?

> On the illogical responses you give to almost anything.

What alleged illogical responses, Roberto?  Care to substantiate your
claims for a change?

>>>>> You can however claim my opinion is wrong,

>>>> What I can do is irrelevant.

>>> Says who?

>> Me.

> Cool. Then I say it is relevant.

Illogical.

> Says me.

Consistent with your previous illogic.

>>> I am trying to make an argument here.

>> You're not succeeding, Roberto.  Try using some logic.

> I believe I suceeded in making the argument.

What you believe is irrelevant, Roberto.

> I did fail in making you understand it, though.

You're erroneously presupposing the existence of your logical argument,
Roberto.

>>>> What I actually did is relevant.  Why don't you deal with that,
>>>> Roberto?

>>> I deal with whatever I want to deal with, Dave.

>> Including irrelevant things.  Is that how you intend to make a case,
>> by arguing about items that are irrelevant?

> Irrelevant to who?

Not who, but rather what, namely the issue at hand.

>>>>> and that you are not a beacon of pure reason and thought (BOPRAT
>>>>> for short).

>>>> Apparently you think there is no ground between those two extremes.
>>>> One can be logical while also using emotion to express, for
>>>> example, music.

>>> You can universally be seen as a BOPRAT or you can not be.

>> You're not addressing the point I made.

Note:  no response.

>>> There is no middle ground for that.

>> You're still not addressing the point I made.

> Let's make your point more clear.

It's already clear enough, Roberto.

> What are the "two extremes" you referred to?

The two you mentioned, Roberto.

> I thought they were the two positions I exposed in the paragraph
> to which you replied.

Reading comprehension makes cameo appearance.

> What was it, a non sequitur?

Obviously not.

>>>>> If you are not a BOPRAT, then you are accepting [b],
>>>>> since you are part of the universe,

>>>> So are you, Roberto.

>>> Indeed. Thanks for the reminder.

>> Did you really need a reminder, Roberto?

> No, I was just being polite.

You should try being polite more often, Roberto.

> So, now, fuck you for the reminder.

Very well.

>>>>> and my overall premise is correct.

>>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?

>>> On the lengthy explanation I just gave,

>> Which I rebutted.

> Where?

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> against which your only argument was that some of the middle steps
>>> should be removed because they are "irrelevant".

>> That's a sufficient argument, Roberto.

> Nope. At least, not unless you are the judge and this is a court.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> But you didn't do that.

>>>> I didn't *not* do that either, Roberto.

>>> I am not saying that you "didn't *not* do that either" Dave.

>> Then what is the relevance of your remark, Roberto?

> Obvious in the context on which it was made.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>> There was neither acceptance nor non-acceptance on my part.

>>> I just presented the logical consequence of what would have happened
>>> if you did,

>> But I didn't do either, therefore your logical consequence is
>> irrelevant.

> Says who?

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> and specifically (remember the "can"?) marked it as such.

>> Mark all the irrelevance you want, Roberto.  It won't help you make a
>> compelling argument.

> So you say.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> You said
>>>>> -----
>>>>> Illogical, given that the above historical account doesn't do
>>>>> anything to contradict any assumption about what people see.
>>>>> -----

>>>> I'm well aware of what I said, Roberto.

>>> Good for you.

>> Why repeat it?

> To make it easier for the reader.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> If I am part of the people,
>>>>> "people" as a whole can not see you in a way different than my
>>>>> own.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that I never said anything about people as a
>>>> whole, Roberto.

>>> You denied my statement, which was precisely about that.

>>>>> Part of the people may, of course, but not "people",

>>>> Illogical, given that others are "people", and you do not speak for
>>>> them, Roberto.

>>> When you use a noun, you are by default referring to the entire
>>> object described by it.
>>> If "people is A" then all of people is A.
>>> If "part of people is not A" then "not people is A".

>>>>> which presumes a universal agreement by all parts of the
>>>>> people, of which I am one.

>>>> That's an illogical presumption, Roberto.

>>> That's ordinary english.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 18:10:26
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:12
Subj: (2/3) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

>> I was referring to your presumption, Roberto, not whether the English
>> you used is ordinary or not.  Still having reading comprehension
>> problems?

> That "illogical presumption" is part of ordinary english usage.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> Since the historical account shows that I don't see you as a
>>>>> BOPRAT, it contradicts directly an assumption that "people"
>>>>> see you as a BOPRAT.

>>>> Illogical, given that you don't speak for others, Roberto.

>>> But I speak for part of the collective of people (my part).

>> Then you shouldn't be using the plural, Roberto.

> Where?

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> Therefore, the universal opinion of the collective can't be
>>> opposite to my own.

>> You're presupposing the existence of a universal opinion, Roberto.

> No. That logic course is really a need for you.
> "A can't have the B quality" says nothing about the existance of "A".
> "Invisible men would be blind because the light would pass their
> retines" says nothing about the existence of invisible men.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> I am not saying that the opinion of the collective is my own either.

>> Then why did you use the plural, Roberto?

> Where?

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> That's why I said that nominating you for KOTM should
>>>>> have shown you that "people" doesn't see you as a BOPRAT,

>>>> You didn't say that, Roberto.

>>> Yes I did.

>> Incorrect.  You didn't say anything about a nomination.  You used the
>> word "that" in a response to my recollection of your erroneous
>> accusation involving an average of 134 articles a day.  Logically,
>> the "that" refers to my response.

> I know what "that" meant. I wrote it.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>> Rather, you used the word "that" in a
>>>> response to the immediately preceding material in which I noted
>>>> your erroneous accusation involving an average of 134 articles a
>>>> day.  Your statement didn't include any reference to a nomination.

>>> Your response was referring to the nomination.

>> My response was referring to your erroneous accusation involving an
>> average of 134 articles a day.

> Then it was a non sequitur.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> I know what I wrote.

>> Doesn't matter if you can't properly express your knowledge in
>> writing Roberto.

> Doesn't mean that what you read is what I meant.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> and thus, you should not have that assumption about how people see
>>>>> you.

>>>> On what basis do you claim that I do have that assumption, Roberto?

>>> I didn't claim you have that assumption.

>> Then why did you write the above, Roberto?

> I had my reasons.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>> On the contrary, my recollection of your erroneous accusation does
>>>> nothing to contradict the specific assumption, given that no
>>>> reasoning is involved.  Instead, recollection is involved.

>>> Since it's now obvious that you were identifying wrongly what I was
>>> referring to with "that",

>> I'm not wrong at all, Roberto.  Logically, your "that" refers to the
>> paragraph which it followed.

> That's stupid. That meant what I wanted it to mean. Maybe I expressed
> it wrong (I don't think I did) but even if it was the case, then
> you are arguing about nothing but what you read, not what I meant.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> your whole argument is flawed.

>> Incorrect.  My argument is fine.  Yours is based on the claim that you
>> meant something different from what you wrote.

> My claim is actually that what I meant is not what you said I wrote.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>>> I need not explain anything to you.

>>>>>> Then explain it to the readers.

>>>>> I need not explain anything to the readers either.

>>>> Then don't blame them for whatever conclusions they might reach
>>>> about you, given your unwillingness to explain your actions.

>>> I don't blame them. I never did.

>> They just might conclude something you don't like.

> I'll cross that bridge when I get to the river.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> I never said you brought me up.

>>>> Then why are you concluding that I'm "still pissed", given that I'm
>>>> not the one who brought you up?

>>> I say you are still pissed based on what you wrote, Dave.

>> On what basis do you say that, Roberto?  If I recall that Clyde
>> Tombaugh discovered Pluto in 1930, are you going to erroneously
>> conclude that I'm still "pissed" about that discovery?

> I am not saying that you are pissed because of what you remember. I am
> saying you are pissed because of what you wrote.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> Stop saying it,

>>>> I'll say whatever is necessary to make my case, Roberto.

>>> Including lies and half truths?

>> Irrelevant, given that no lies and half truths are involved on my
>> part, Roberto.

> It's a simple question. Answer yes or no.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> Nice to see you come out of the closet.

>> Illogical, given that there is no closet involved on my part, Roberto.

> You said you will say "whatever is necessary".
> "Whatever" includes lies.
> You said you will lie if needed.
>
> I just gave you a chance to look good, to say "Of course I didn't mean
> I would lie". So, apparently you would lie.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>> here you are, still trying to put the onus on me.

>>>>> For the things you did brought up? Yes.

>>>> But I didn't bring you up, therefore there is no onus to put on me.
>>>> So why are you trying to do so?

>>> I don't say you brought me up.

>> But you are trying to put the onus on me.

> No.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> You brought up something else.

>> A historical fact, Roberto.

> Something.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> I put on you the onus for it.

>> Illogical, given that a recollection of a historical fact is no basis
>> for concluding that someone is still "pissed".  See above for an
>> example.

> I never said you are pissed because of recollection of historical fact.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that my response does have a connection to what
>>>>>> I'm replied to.

>>>>> I can't parse that.

>>>> That's your problem, Roberto.

>>> I'd say it's your writing.

>> How ironic, coming from someone who wrote:

>> RA] The day only what you say is relevant, is the day I kill myself.

> You seem to ignore the meaning of ironic. At least I have a valid
> excuse.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>> The fact that you're here, responding to me, raises
>>>>>> interesting questions about your own motivations.  Just how did
>>>>>> you manage to stumble across a reference to you in this newsgroup?

>>>>> I notice all references to me in USENET.

>>>> Really?  Do you read every single newsgroup to find references to
>>>> you?

>>> There are this newfangled things called computers. They are good at
>>> repetitive tasks, like pattern matching in massive amounts of text.

>> Why would you even bother, Roberto?

> Reasons explained already. Seems you did not, despite your claims,
> read the whole message before replying.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>> That's pretty bizarre behavior.

>>> Since that's not a behaviour I practice,

>> You practice a behavior that involves finding every reference to you
>> in all newsgroups.

> But I do not "read every single newsgroup to find references to [me]"
> which is what you claimed was bizarre behaviour.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> I don't care if you find it bizarre.

>> You should.

> Why? Are you a human behaviour specialist? I find your behaviour
> bizarre. Do you care?

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>> Exactly what is your motivation for finding every reference
>> to you in every newsgroup?

> Explained before. You seem to have missed it (or you didn't read
> and remember the whole article, despite your claims to the
> contrary). Was that claim an example of saying "whatever it takes"?

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>>>>> PS: they weren't 134 a day,

>>>>>>>> Then why did you claim there were,

>>>>>>> Because I was wrong, Dave, just as I admitted years ago.

>>>>>> Not right away.

>>>>> Never said I did.

>>>> And you never said (logically) why it took you so long to admit it.

>>> I say what I want to say.

>> And avoid saying that which you can't logically explain.

> Yes.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>>>>> but they sure felt like it.

>>>>>>>> That wasn't your argument at the time.  You insisted on actual
>>>>>>>> numbers back then, not feelings.

>>>>>>> It is my argument of today.

>>>>>> Ah, your argument du jour.

>>> Small insert: it is "my argument d'aujourd'hui" not "du jour".

>> That's not what I wrote, Roberto.

> That's what you should have written if you wanted to use correct french.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> Do you feel that writing in french makes you look more correct?

>>>> Irrelevant, given that I am not writing in French.

>>> "du jour" is french.

>> I see you're ignoring the other 99+ percent.  Illogical.

> So, you did write in french. Now, do you want to answer the
> question?.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>> Interesting that your "feeling" has a precision of 134.

>>>>> Not necessarily.

>>>> Non sequitur.  I'm noting something interesting.  See below for why
>>>> I find it interesting.  Necessity has nothing to do with it.

>>> I am saying that my feeling is not necessarily precise.

>> Then why did you use three digits of precision, Roberto?

> Why not? Should I say "it felt like 125+-25"?

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> Your "interesting" bit is simply not necessarily correct.

>> Illogical, given that my "interesting" bit is not a matter of
>>"correct" or "incorrect".  Rather, it's a matter of interest.

> If you are interested in incorrect things that's your own problem.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>> Others tend to use "dozens", or "umpteen", or
>>>>>> some other non-specific term when referring to such feelings.

>>>>> I don't think I would have felt different with anything from, say,
>>>>> 100 up to 150.

>>>> Then why choose 134 rather than "a hundred"?

>>> Why not?

>> Because it's wrong, Roberto.

> If I feel the same between 100 and 150, "it felt like 134" is correct.
> Just as "it felt like 148" is correct.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>> You were specific down to the single posting, and used flawed
>>>>>> mathematics, not feelings, to try and substantiate it.

>>>>> You are confusing 1997 and 1999.

>>>> Balderdash, Roberto.

>>>>> As you said, in 1997 I was not talking about feelings.

>>>> So, the explanation you did use was a lie.  Both explanations can't
>>>> be true.

>>> You are confusing facts and feelings.

>> Incorrect.  I'm comparing your argument then with your argument now.
>> Both can't be true.

> Since I am not arguing about the same thing, they could.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> I am doing it now,

>>>> All that time, and you couldn't come up with a better explanation.

>> Note:  no response.

> Note: response.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> and I have not substantiated it in any way,

>>>> How could you?  Can you substantiate your feelings?

>>> I didn't say I can.

>> I didn't say that you did.  I asked if you could.

> And I exercised tholenism by giving a non-answer.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>> Which was when you took a total number of postings and divided by a
>> flawed date range.  Note:  no reference to any feelings at that time.

> Because it was 1997.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>> You also continued to insist that your calculation was correct, even
>> after the error had been identified.  Note:  still no reference to any
>> feelings at that time.

> Because it was 1997, and:

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> Feelings came into this in 1999.

>> Irrelevant, given that you made your accusation before 1999.  What
>> matters is your motivation then, not now.  Motivation must precede
>> action, not follow it.

> Feelings were not the motivation for the 1997 incident. I never said
> they were.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> Look at the calendar.

>> I'm looking at your illogic.

> Illogic is not a visible object.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>> You dug yourself into a hole back then, and I see you're doing it
>>>>>> again, in a feeble attempt to save face.

>>>>> At least I have a face to save, Dave.

>>>> Too bad you're failing at the save attempt.

>>> Too bad you are faceless.

>> On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim, Roberto?

> The big gaping hole above your neck?

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>>> What are you, some sort of librarian of ancient anger?

>>>>>> What makes you ask that?

>>>>> Curiosity.

>>>> More like illogic.

>>> No, it's curiosity.

>> No, it's illogic.

> I know my motivation better than you do. Now, care to answer the
> question?

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> Will you answer the question?

>> Why should I answer an illogical question, Roberto?

> The question is not illogical. It is simple and has a yes/no answer.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>> What are you, someone who seeks out any
>>>>>> reference to you in any newsgroup?

>>>>> Someone who has software to do that for him, actually.

>>>> But why?

>>> I explain that right below, Dave.

>> No you don't, Roberto.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 18:10:26
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:12
Subj: (3/3) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

>>> You should read the whole post before replying (and remember it).

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I did not.

> Well, you missed the explanation about me searching for my projects
> on USENET, and it is here. It seems you did not read the whole post
> and remember it before replying. I'll accept an apology if you promise
> never to lie to me again.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>> Exactly what drew your attention
>>>>>> to this newsgroup after so long a silence?

>>>>> A reference to my name.

>>>> That reference was made by Jason S.  Why didn't you respond to him,
>>>> Roberto?

>>> I didn't reply because I didn't believe it demanded an answer.

>> My recollection also didn't demand an answer, Roberto.

> I believe it did. Your opinion about wether I should reply or
> not has no influence on mine.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> I don't reply to all references to my name.

>> Why did you reply to my reference, Roberto?

> Because I believed it demanded an answer.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> I do it to keep track of arguments I am involved in.

>>>> Are you involved in arguments all over USENET, Roberto?

>>> In more groups than I read.

>> That's not "all over USENET", Roberto.

> Then the answer to your question is no. I don't recall ever being
> involved in an argument in alt.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk. so no,
> I am not involved in arguments all over USENET.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> Often I would reply in a thread about a project I am involved in,
>>> on a newsgroup I don't read.

>> Why would a thread about a project you're involved in utilize your
>> name specifically, Roberto?

> The thread doesn't. I said below that I also search for references
> to my projects. Looks like despite your claim to the contrary, you
> did not read the whole post and remembered it before replying.
> Bad Dave!

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> Then I keep track of replies to my post by references to my name.

>> That doesn't explain what triggered your post in the first place.
>> If you don't read the newsgroup, then how did you find out about
>> a reference to a project you're involved in?

> Because I also search for references to my projects, as I said below.
> How many more references to your apparently false claim of reading
> the whole post (and remembering it) before replying are we going to
> have today Dave? Is this the "I am Dave Tholen, I want to look like
> a liar" day?

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> I also look for references to my projects on all of USENET.

>> Why didn't you say that in the first place, Roberto?

> I said it before you asked (half a dozen times!) for it. In fact, I said
> it in the article quoted in the one where you repeatedly ask.
>
> So you did read it now. Now, if you did read the whole post before
> replying, why did you ask questions for which the answer was already
> here? My guess: you lied about reading the whole article and remembering
> it.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> When I said "that's subjective, personal opinion" I was not
>>>>> talking about the numbers.

>>>> Incorrect:
>>>>
>>>> RA] PPS: preemptive Tholen argument response: they felt like that
>>>> RA] to me, that's subjective, personal opinion,
>>>>
>>>> The subject is clearly "they", which is a reference to the average
>>>> number of articles I posted each day.

>>> "they" is a reference to the articles themselves, not to their
>>> number, Dave.

>> "They" is a reference to the size of the collection of articles,
>> Roberto.

> No, it is a reference to the collection of articles. A boring teather
> play can feel like a dozen plays. A very good book can feel like a
> thousand books.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>> That size can be described with a number.  If "they" is not a
>> reference to a number, then why did you use a number to described
>> that alleged feeling, Roberto?

> Because it conveyed the feeling.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> Who are you to say what I "talk" about?

>> Someone who reads what you've written, Roberto.

> Nice. I am the one who writes what you read. I have purest knowledge.
> Information Theory 101.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>>>>> so save it for the winter.

>>>>>>>> I'll deal with you whenever you choose to respond, Roberto.

>>>>>>> I'll deal with you whenever I have no need to be useful to
>>>>>>> society.

>>>>>> Exactly how does changing your argument (your argument du jour)
>>>>>> benefit society, Roberto?

>>>>> In no way.

>>>> Then why do it, Roberto?

>>> Why not?

>> Because it makes you look like a fool, Roberto.

> So?

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>> You only do things for the benefit of society?

>> Irrelevant, Roberto.  The issue is the motivation for you changing
>> your argument.

> Well, we all agree that it was not the benefit of society.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> That's why I only do it when I am not needing to be useful.

>>>> But when you need to lie to try and save face.

>>> Not necessarily.

>> In this case you did.

> No.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>> Reading comprehension problems, Dave?

>>>> Not at all, Roberto.

>>> Your response to that question is as inevitable and thoughtless as
>>> the drooling of Pavlov's dogs.

>> Illogical, Roberto.  I'm not surprised.

> Drool, doggie, drool.

"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: matt@i_dont_want_your_email.com                   21-Oct-99 11:45:16
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:12
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Matt H" <matt@i_dont_want_your_email.com>

Don't waste your time Drestin, after reading this entire thread I must
conclude that Bob is totally biased and full of shit!

I am a systems administrator for an ISP and his claims of Win9x DUN being
inherently slow are just plain ignorant. My old win95A system, with the very
first version of DUN took exactly 26 seconds to connect. Of this 26 seconds
22 were modem negotiations and 4 was the actual PPP script and
authentication. ALL problems of long connect times are caused by two things;
modem negotiation failures (ever bought an HCF based 56K winmodem) or
configuration issues. If I had a dollar for every user that had 'log on to
network' checked, I could resign tomorrow.

As far as the "creeping registry corruption in Win 9x" of the 1000+ windows
machines I have repaired, maybe 10-15 of them had registry problems that
were preventing the OS from booting. Most of these had harddrive failures
and scandisk revealed bad clusters on the media itself.

Matt
<snipped>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NNWS (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 11:50:15
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:12
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Kim Cheung wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:11:11 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
>
>
> >Now, in my opinion, any normal businessman would call up IBM and say
> >> >
>
> He DID do all that he could.

Well, the big meeting/decision was on September 16, 1999 (according to
Brad) and Brad does his big post on September 17, 1999.  Obviously, Brad
didn't give himself much time to "do all that he could."
>
[snip]
> >After all, this might be
> >his decision and he should know.  As far as the stuff about '...IBM has
> >indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their
> >own',
>
> That wasn't what he said (nor IBM).   The keyword continues to be "at this
> time".

Are you starting to rewrite history?  Here is the direct quote from Brad
Wardell's 9/17/99 "Judgment Day Results" post:  "The call has been made
-- there will be no new client from Stardock and IBM has indicated that
they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their own."

There is nothing about 'at this time' in this quote.  Let's just stick
to the facts.  There are so few of them, after all.

>
> >Brad clarified that in an interview on 9/30/99 when he said:
> >
> >"IBM has never stated that they will never do another new version of
> >OS/2 nor would I expect
> >them to."
>
> That's not what I read.    I did not see the word "never" from his
interview.

Here is the link to the Brad Wardell interview:

http://www.32bitsonline.com/article.php3?file=issues/199909/stardockiinterview&
page=1

If you follow this link, you too will see the word "never" from Brad's
interview.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 08:08:09
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 16:48:12
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380e9f7a$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <7ulnvi$9kq58$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 01:48 PM,
>    "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > > In point of fact, most Windows 9x users are NOT on a network.
Therefore,
> > > MS has introduced needless overhead, aka a serious bug, to the
software.
> > > People on networks either have knowledge or technical support in
house.
> > > Individual users lack both.
>
> > That my friend is not a bug.  It is working as designed - not a bug.
>
> First of all, you are not my friend, never can be since you are a liar,
> and have no right to assume such familiarity. Secondly, only a MicroSoft
> Lemming would make such an outrageous statement.
>
Alright, let me rephrase.

That is not a bug *asshole*.  It is working as designed - not a bug.


How about telling me why something that works as it is designed is a bug
instead of calling me a liar and a lemming.  From what I've read of your
posts, reason doesn't enter into it, so I don't hold out much hope.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: The Internet Group Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                21-Oct-99 13:43:20
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: I am GLAD IBM wants some money!

From: bruno schwander <[e-mail]>

if you go to ibm os/2 warp site, there is a link right there to buy os/2,
directly from IBM...

Jim Burke wrote:

> I bought warp 3, warp connect, warp 4, a computer, a lexmark printer, and
lotus smartsuite from a
> company pretending to be IBM. The invoices said IBM, the phone number I
called was IBM, and the checks I
> wrote were made payable to IBM. Most, if not all of this, was presented to
me directly in the form of
> special offers for stockholders.
>
> I got the feeling after a time they were dumping some slow-moving inventory,
but I guess it is a
> cruel world and caveat emptor.
>
> I've written them a note lately about purchasing more than one software
choice licenses, but they
> haven't responded to my email asking for the price breaks.
>
> But I'll learn. At least I hope I will learn.
>
> Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >On <[e-mail]>, on 09/30/99 at 03:46 PM,
> >   "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]> said:
>
> >> Oh, I don't know...You demanded payment be made on the very same day
> >> that IBM announced this new plan.  In the business world, a one-day
> >> period is considered quite fast.  I STILL have not received a callback
> >> from IBM.  I doubt if IBM will even be set up to go with this for
> >> several more WEEKS.  And the program does not actually even BEGIN until
> >> January 1, 2000.  So yes, you rushed to judgment.  Admit it.
>
> >No, it is you who rushed to judgement my dear sir. Moreover, you rushed to
> >judgement without having your facts straight. Your reckless disregard of
> >facts renders you opinion valueless.
>
> >Software choice has been around for some time. It is readily available
> >from IBM resellers such as Indelible Blue. It includes for $100 a year
> >software I otherwise would have to pay well over $200. The subscription
> >includes TCP/IP for OS/2 version 4.1 which costs more as a standalone
> >($269) than a two year subscription.
>
> >IBM isn't going to sell to you or me directly. IBM sells through
> >resellers, period. The PC company is a subsidiary of IBM, not the
> >corporation. The PC company may well be sold off, left to die, closed. IBM
> >sells to BUSINESSES. If individuals want to buy, use, etc. IBM products
> >they must go through an authorized reseller.
>
> >You cannot go to Damlier-Chrysler, General Motors, Ford, etc. and buy a
> >car, parts, etc. You must go through dealers if you are an individual, a
> >small company, a local government agency, etc. However, if you are big
> >enough like Avis, Hertz, etc. you can indeed deal directly with the
> >manufacturer.
>
> >You cannot go to Wyeth and buy their latest drug directly. You go to a
> >pharmacist. Your pharmacist cannot go directly to Wyeth and buy their
> >latest drug. He must go to a wholesaler. But if you are Eckards you CAN go
> >directly to Wyeth.
>
> >The B in IBM stands for Business.
>
> >--
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
> >Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
> >Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 9
> >MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> >Aut Pax Aut Bellum
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]               21-Oct-99 13:44:17
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:50:31 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:

>
>
>Kim Cheung wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:11:11 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Now, in my opinion, any normal businessman would call up IBM and say
>> >> >
>>
>> He DID do all that he could.
>
>Well, the big meeting/decision was on September 16, 1999 (according to
>Brad) and Brad does his big post on September 17, 1999.  Obviously, Brad
>didn't give himself much time to "do all that he could."

One thing I have long learned in dealing with IBM (or any corporation, for
that matter) is that all of the ground works must be done before a particular
meeting.   The agenda of a meeting is usually a formality.   This was
certainly one of those cases.

>>
>[snip]
>> >After all, this might be
>> >his decision and he should know.  As far as the stuff about '...IBM has
>> >indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their
>> >own',
>>
>> That wasn't what he said (nor IBM).   The keyword continues to be "at this
>> time".
>
>Are you starting to rewrite history?  Here is the direct quote from Brad
>Wardell's 9/17/99 "Judgment Day Results" post:  "The call has been made
>-- there will be no new client from Stardock and IBM has indicated that
>they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their own."
>

No, I am not trying to rewrite history.   May be he didn't convey the message
very effectively but I know that for all the parties involved, the message
was suppose to be: IBM has indicated that they have no plans for an
OS/2-based client of their own AT THIS TIME.   (Didn't he say something about
IBM going into garden hose business or something like that?)

>There is nothing about 'at this time' in this quote.  Let's just stick
>to the facts.  There are so few of them, after all.
>
>>
>> >Brad clarified that in an interview on 9/30/99 when he said:
>> >
>> >"IBM has never stated that they will never do another new version of
>> >OS/2 nor would I expect
>> >them to."
>>
>> That's not what I read.    I did not see the word "never" from his
interview.
>
>Here is the link to the Brad Wardell interview:
>
>http://www.32bitsonline.com/article.php3?file=issues/199909/stardockiinterview
&page=1
>
>If you follow this link, you too will see the word "never" from Brad's
>interview.

If the word "never" was used, that would not be accurate.   Mind you that I
am not saying IBM WILL come out with a new client - I simply know they would
not use the word NEVER.   Whether a new client will see the light of the day
depends purely whether a business case can be made.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         21-Oct-99 14:42:23
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: Nathan Herren <[e-mail]>

What you missed is that this is a parody (totally false) on the Software
Publishers Association (the organization dedicated to software copyright
compliance) promoting pirating software to reduce M$ income.  It
compares favorably to M$ lobbying effort (totally true) to reduce
monetary allocations for the Department of Justices' Antitrust division.

HTH

-Nathan

Chad Myers wrote:
>
> heh.. Pretty good, well formed =)
>
> One of the best parody news items I've seen.
>
> However, I didn't get the joke, was it
> supposed to be funny? It seemed pretty
> realistic in most facets except for the bogus
> names and such.
>
> What'd I miss?
>
> Chad
>
> Eric Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> >
> >
> > SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget
> > EBNet Newswire
> >
> >
> > Boston, MA.  October 20, 1999.  The Software Pirates of America (SPA)
> > today announced a new lobbying campaign aimed at reducing the year 2000
> > budgets for the Department of Justice and the U.S. Copyright Office.
>
> >    "We believe that the Justice Department has handled enforcement of the
> > copyright laws in an inappropriate manner", said SPA President R. Edward
> > Baird, "and therefore it is appropriate for Congress to reduce the
> > agency's funding."  Baird cited industry statistics showing that the
> > activities of his organization have lowered costs to consumers and
> > businesses around the world by hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
> > "Many people who are prosecuted for violating copyright laws are
> > actually protected under the 'fair use' clause", claimed Baird.  "These
> > inappropriate and wayward prosecutions must be stopped."
> >
> >    Industry analysts applauded the move.  Lem Ing of the Gardener Group
> > noted that the move shows an increasing trend in the technology industry
> > of groups being willing to challenge government waste.  "As usual,
> > credit for this innovation should go to Microsoft," said Ing, "given the
> > recent disclosure that Microsoft is lobbying against blatant waste in
> > the DOJ's antitrust division.  And given that a prominent Republican has
> > labeled the antitrust division as one of the most efficient units in the
> > government, Microsoft's action clearly shows that even relatively
> > efficient government agencies are still very wasteful.  We thus expect a
> > flood of actions similar to the action disclosed today by the SPA, all
> > aimed at at reducing overactive law enforcement activities."
> >
> >    Bo Guss, an analysts with Datajest, concurred with Baird's analysis,
> > noting that "government prosecutions in this area clearly result in
> > higher costs to large numbers of consumers and corporations."
> >
> >    Microsoft spokesman Tom Pilla blasted the group's efforts as
> > constituting a "blatant disregard for the law", but Baird insists that
> > his group's actions are ethical.  "Like Microsoft, we are simply
> > exercising our rights to speak freely and to petition the government for
> > a redress of grievances," he said.
> >
> >    There have also been reports that, due to the number of privately filed
> > copyright suits, the SPA is considering lobbying for cuts in court
> > funding for district courts that have not shown sympathy to SPA members.
> > SPA officials refused to comment on these reports.
> >
> >
> >
> > For more breaking news from EBNet Newswire, please visit our web site:
> > http://128.253.200.125/news/
> >
> > --
> > EBNet Newswire, Inc.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hewlett-Packard LaserJet Information Systems Test
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                21-Oct-99 13:55:29
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: pinball.sys BROKEN by SP5??

From: bruno schwander <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] wrote:

>
> Problem is, you have to run chkdsk on HPFS when it boots dirty, which
> can take a large part of a coffee break or two.  NTFS doesn't -- it
> starts up in a second.

yeah, right...
in an alternate dimension maybe; tell me what is that blue screen telling me
NT
was not shut down properly and has to check the disks (for an hour or 2 ?

>
>
>  '`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
>
>  Corne1 Huth  -  http://40th.com/
>  Bullet database engines/servers 3.1  Win32-WinCE-OS2-Linux+

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      21-Oct-99 14:56:15
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

PMFJI

Bob Germer wrote in message <380f2610$3$obot$[e-mail]>...
>On <JWDP3.13162$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 12:46 PM,
>   "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> said:
>
>> First, I'd like to know what an OS failure is and how registry
>> corruption was occuring rampantly? Mostly I'd like to know how you
>> debugged this and lastly, why hasn't anyone else noticed this problem.
>
>What a crock of shit! Thousands here in Usenet have commented at length
>over the years on the creeping registry corruption problem with Win9x. If
>one keeps rebooting often enough, you get TOLD at boot that the registry
>is corrupt you moron!
>

Bob you are the one that is full of shit.  The thousands of posts about the
creeping registry corruption are as full of shit as you.  The causes are
exactly as Drestin said.  People futzing with their systems.

>> If you are a 10,000 seat MS user than you might very well have been able
>> to get MS techs to arrive physically on your site to assist debugging
>
>Those workstations, as stated previously, are spread out over many
>clients. They are not in one place. But you knew that and deliberately
>ignored it so as to try to justify the crap put out by the company which
>obviously pays you, - namely MicroSoft.
>

Are you saying you didn't adminstrate them from a central location, didn't
have a test environment, didn't have corporate standards.  Jeeeze no wonder
you didn't have any stability.  Look for a new line of work.

>> (if you really had 10,000 seats with Win on them and didn't bootleg your
>> way past the licensing, you'd be in a position to ring up Redmond and
>> have them fly two techs out most any day of the week, they're pretty
>> cool about it, I can give you the name of some of my fav. techs).
>
>Calling Redmond is a total waste of time. They do absolutely nothing more
>than point fingers at hardware vendors, software vendors, etc.
>
>> Now, Bob, have you considered something here:
>> Win9x is the OS for the masses. You install it at your company because
>> the users demand it. Even mangement that starts by insisting on
>> something else eventually gives in because all it's hirees only know
>> Windows and they are far less productive using anything else and the
>> learning curves are counter productive.
>
>More pure MS hype and lie. Employees will use what the institution
>provides or find other employment. There was much wailing and bitching and
>complaining at many of these clients sites when they were forced by a bad
>management decisions to abandon WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS. We are correcting
>this problem on an ongoing basis by reverting them to other alternatives
>which allow proper use of WP.
>

WordPerfect runs perfectly on Win9x too, or did that little snippet get past
your built in anti MS bias.

>> So, with Win9x installed, everyone and his sister think they are free to
>> install any Win app they can download, bootleg, borrow or steal. Revisit
>> any Win9x machine you installed 6 months ago and that nice Ghosted load
>> you had there has been changed, manipulated, updated, backdated and
>> messed with a dozen times over.
>
>Not frequently. Most have not been altered from the original install other
>than adding of workproduct.
>

Bull shit,  You were simply incapable of detecting the real problem.

>
>>Shutdowns without shutting down,
>
>Something Windows doesn't handle very well at all. A serious flaw in the
>program. And one which must frequently be resorted to when Win 9x chooses
>to lock up the keyboard and mouse or refuses to shut down.
>

And OS/2 does? HA HA HA HA......

>apps installed and their directories deleted instead of uninstalled.
>
>Something that should be readily fixable which it is not. This is a
>serious problem with Win9x.
>

And it is fixable for someone with the wherewithal to learn the tools they
use.

>
>Joes> favorite Win 3.11 screen saver (Johnny castaway was so popular at
>one > site that we had to institute a "You got Johnny, you got no job" >
>policy). The OS gets used and abused.
>
>How come, then, the same users doing the same things they have always been
>doing don't have problems once Windows is replaced by a good operating
>system? Tell me that you idiot.
>

OS/2 wont solve these problems any better, and in fact will exacerbate the
situation since the methods of monitoring, robust network clients and
centralized administration do not exist.

>
>>And these computer "idiots" screw
>> it up and it starts to do what any OS messed with does, it crashes. And
>> your users aren't going to admit it happened after they installed print
>> shop master gold 6.5 from '97, tried it again when it complained about
>> some driver conflict error thing-a-ma-bob, then finally installed print
>> master '98 in the same directory (cause the names sounded alike so they
>> are probably the same program right?) and then when it was really
>> screwed up tried to uninstall the first one first and then when trying
>> to uninstall the second one and it wouldn't even run the uninstall so
>> they just deleted the directory and THEN called you to say: "Windows is
>> crashing in, ummmmm, WORD, yeah, WORD a lot" - you come over and say:
>> Gee, the OS sucks, my perfect users are suffering, I'll install
>> something else.
>
>A stable, properly designed operating system wouldn't be crashed by such
>things. That Windows is while others are not (or with several magnitudes
>fewer occurances) is proof that Windows is an abortion and fatally flawed
>operating system.
>


You left out properly implemented.  If you don't set it up correctly, and
your own posts have shown that you weren't capable of doing so, any OS can
become a disaster but that's not the OS's fault that's yours.

>> So, you go and install OS/2 or even worse, Linux on their desktop. What
>> happens. Gee, they run the one or two authorized apps cause they are
>> forced to learn them. The OS itself is so alien and hard to use and
>> unintuitive and intimidating. They have nothing to install on it
>> themselves cause no one they know uses it or has any cute
>> frog-in-the-blender games to send them. All their kids software at home
>> won't install as soon as it's put in the CD-ROM anymore and even most
>> java apps on the web fail under the slowest netscape browser they could
>> sneak in. Basically they stop abusing/using the OS and JUST run their
>> two apps (or app suites).
>
>Even if that were true which of course it is not, this is what employers
>want their people to be doing. They don't want them playing games, doing
>kids homework, etc. In fact, more than 40% of the workstations are set up
>without a floppy drive and without a CD (or with same disabled) just to
>prevent this sort of misuse of an employer's property.
>

You are now asserting you did this with the Win9x?

>
> And you think, gee, we have no more "OS
>> failures" - not realizing, it's cause they aren't doing anything but
>> running two apps instead of previously actually playing with the OS,
>> changing color depth, desktop resolution, running active desktop with
>> push channels, setting themes and generally mucking about in the OS
>> configuration. Control panel is there and it's easy to play with, let's
>> run with it!
>
>Again, a fatal flaw in Window's design. Control panel should be
>unavailable to users.
>

It can be if you use the policies as stated by drestin.

>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
>Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
>Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
>MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
>Aut Pax Aut Bellum
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary Organization (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               21-Oct-99 18:08:08
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote the following more times than I cared to
count:
>
>"So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>   --Roberto Alsina

Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual would
do?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                              21-Oct-99 17:29:27
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 21:24:22
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: "Chad Myers" <[e-mail]>

Ahh... ok, thank you for clarifying that.

Although MS's (or M$ as you childishly call them) efforts
are not uncommon with a big-dog corporation. That's how
you play the game, and MS has to play to keep in the business.

Anyhow, since the Clinton Administration is taking cheapshots
against MS (because Gates withdrew his '92 campaign contributions
right before the election, so Clinton was seeking revenge)
it's only fair that MS should take a cheap shot at the DOJ.

Did you know that Microsoft has been invesitgated by the
FTC since like 1986?  Did you know that in 1990, I think
(perhaps 91 or 92) the six-panel investigative team
voted 5-1 that MS wasn't doing anything in violation of
federal trade laws and all further invesigations by the
FTC or DOJ should cease?

Did you know that as soon as Clinton got elected and placed
the Butcher of Waco Janet Reno in as Attorney General, the
DOJ investigation immediately resumed?

Quite a coincidence, eh?

Oh.. by the way, remember who the lead proponent in Congress
for the investigation was? R-Novell-er-Utah Orin Hatch?

That's how you play the game, don't you see?

Thanks,

Chad Myers


"Nathan Herren" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> What you missed is that this is a parody (totally false) on the
Software
> Publishers Association (the organization dedicated to software
copyright
> compliance) promoting pirating software to reduce M$ income.  It
> compares favorably to M$ lobbying effort (totally true) to reduce
> monetary allocations for the Department of Justices' Antitrust
division.
>
> HTH
>
> -Nathan
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > heh.. Pretty good, well formed =)
> >
> > One of the best parody news items I've seen.
> >
> > However, I didn't get the joke, was it
> > supposed to be funny? It seemed pretty
> > realistic in most facets except for the bogus
> > names and such.
> >
> > What'd I miss?
> >
> > Chad
> >
> > Eric Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:[e-mail]...
> > >
> > >
> > > SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget
> > > EBNet Newswire
> > >
> > >
> > > Boston, MA.  October 20, 1999.  The Software Pirates of America
(SPA)
> > > today announced a new lobbying campaign aimed at reducing the
year 2000
> > > budgets for the Department of Justice and the U.S. Copyright
Office.
> >
> > >    "We believe that the Justice Department has handled
enforcement of the
> > > copyright laws in an inappropriate manner", said SPA President
R. Edward
> > > Baird, "and therefore it is appropriate for Congress to reduce
the
> > > agency's funding."  Baird cited industry statistics showing that
the
> > > activities of his organization have lowered costs to consumers
and
> > > businesses around the world by hundreds of billions of dollars
annually.
> > > "Many people who are prosecuted for violating copyright laws are
> > > actually protected under the 'fair use' clause", claimed Baird.
"These
> > > inappropriate and wayward prosecutions must be stopped."
> > >
> > >    Industry analysts applauded the move.  Lem Ing of the
Gardener Group
> > > noted that the move shows an increasing trend in the technology
industry
> > > of groups being willing to challenge government waste.  "As
usual,
> > > credit for this innovation should go to Microsoft," said Ing,
"given the
> > > recent disclosure that Microsoft is lobbying against blatant
waste in
> > > the DOJ's antitrust division.  And given that a prominent
Republican has
> > > labeled the antitrust division as one of the most efficient
units in the
> > > government, Microsoft's action clearly shows that even
relatively
> > > efficient government agencies are still very wasteful.  We thus
expect a
> > > flood of actions similar to the action disclosed today by the
SPA, all
> > > aimed at at reducing overactive law enforcement activities."
> > >
> > >    Bo Guss, an analysts with Datajest, concurred with Baird's
analysis,
> > > noting that "government prosecutions in this area clearly result
in
> > > higher costs to large numbers of consumers and corporations."
> > >
> > >    Microsoft spokesman Tom Pilla blasted the group's efforts as
> > > constituting a "blatant disregard for the law", but Baird
insists that
> > > his group's actions are ethical.  "Like Microsoft, we are simply
> > > exercising our rights to speak freely and to petition the
government for
> > > a redress of grievances," he said.
> > >
> > >    There have also been reports that, due to the number of
privately filed
> > > copyright suits, the SPA is considering lobbying for cuts in
court
> > > funding for district courts that have not shown sympathy to SPA
members.
> > > SPA officials refused to comment on these reports.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For more breaking news from EBNet Newswire, please visit our web
site:
> > > http://128.253.200.125/news/
> > >
> > > --
> > > EBNet Newswire, Inc.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Jump.Net (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 15:42:07
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 21:24:22
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Kim Cheung wrote:
> >>
> >> He DID do all that he could.
> >
> >Well, the big meeting/decision was on September 16, 1999 (according to
> >Brad) and Brad does his big post on September 17, 1999.  Obviously, Brad
> >didn't give himself much time to "do all that he could."
>
> One thing I have long learned in dealing with IBM (or any corporation, for
> that matter) is that all of the ground works must be done before a
particular
> meeting.   The agenda of a meeting is usually a formality.   This was
> certainly one of those cases.

Kim, you don't understand.  The decision is not made until the
decision-maker (whoever or whatever that is) has made it.  *If* the
decision was made prior to the meeting, then someone or some group was
opposed.  Obviously then, the proper groundwork was not done if the
meeting *was* a formality AND the decision was unfavorable.  In such a
case, the issue should not have even been on the agenda as it is
pointless and a further waste of the decision-makers time.  In this
case, additional effort is required to determine who is objecting, what
their reasons are, and what can be done to mitigate their objections.
The timetable that Brad Wardell has provided, obviously does not allow
this.  Based on his statements, he was notified of an unfavorable
decision on 9/16/99 or 9/17/99 and he immediately posts his message to
the newsgroups on 9/17/99.  Any sort of minimal debriefing and follow-up
efforts to find out where his proposal ran on the rocks and what could
be done to resuscitate it would have required efforts expended during a
timespan of several days.  And that is why I said that he seemed to be
eager to take 'NO' for an answer--the very statement that you keep
posting these objections to.


>
> >>
> >[snip]
> >> >After all, this might be
> >> >his decision and he should know.  As far as the stuff about '...IBM has
> >> >indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their
> >> >own',
> >>
> >> That wasn't what he said (nor IBM).   The keyword continues to be "at
this
> >> time".
> >
> >Are you starting to rewrite history?  Here is the direct quote from Brad
> >Wardell's 9/17/99 "Judgment Day Results" post:  "The call has been made
> >-- there will be no new client from Stardock and IBM has indicated that
> >they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their own."
> >
>
> No, I am not trying to rewrite history.   May be he didn't convey the
message
> very effectively but I know that for all the parties involved, the message
> was suppose to be: IBM has indicated that they have no plans for an
> OS/2-based client of their own AT THIS TIME.   (Didn't he say something
about
> IBM going into garden hose business or something like that?)

Don't know about the garden hose business.  But Wardell's words speak
for themselves.  I don't know why you keep trying to add to them or
supplement them with the 'AT THIS TIME' stuff that Wardell didn't say.
And why are you working so hard to convey his message for him?  Do you
have a business relationship with Wardell?


>
> >There is nothing about 'at this time' in this quote.  Let's just stick
> >to the facts.  There are so few of them, after all.
> >
> >>
> >> >Brad clarified that in an interview on 9/30/99 when he said:
> >> >
> >> >"IBM has never stated that they will never do another new version of
> >> >OS/2 nor would I expect
> >> >them to."
> >>
> >> That's not what I read.    I did not see the word "never" from his
interview.
> >
> >Here is the link to the Brad Wardell interview:
> >
>
>http://www.32bitsonline.com/article.php3?file=issues/199909/stardockiinterview
&page=1
> >
> >If you follow this link, you too will see the word "never" from Brad's
> >interview.
>
> If the word "never" was used, that would not be accurate.   Mind you that I
> am not saying IBM WILL come out with a new client - I simply know they would
> not use the word NEVER.   Whether a new client will see the light of the day
> depends purely whether a business case can be made.

You are really getting 'out there.'  'That would not be accurate?'  Are
you trying to reword Brad's statement?  Has he given you permission to
do this?  I have accurately quoted his statement.  I have given you the
link to it.  And you say it is not accurate???

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               21-Oct-99 18:56:04
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 21:24:22
Subj: Re: Rudolph The Rednose Hooters Here

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> THis IS it: The site where they talk about when you are 50 years old.
>
> http://huizen.dds.nl/~jansen20

Heh... is this Karel's home page?  :-)

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                21-Oct-99 18:39:24
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 21:24:22
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: [e-mail] (Jerry McBride)

In article <7uo23i$eiu$[e-mail]>,
"Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>PMFJI
>
>Bob Germer wrote in message <380f2610$3$obot$[e-mail]>...
>>On <JWDP3.13162$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 12:46 PM,
>>   "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> said:
>>
>>> First, I'd like to know what an OS failure is and how registry
>>> corruption was occuring rampantly? Mostly I'd like to know how you
>>> debugged this and lastly, why hasn't anyone else noticed this problem.
>>
>>What a crock of shit! Thousands here in Usenet have commented at length
>>over the years on the creeping registry corruption problem with Win9x. If
>>one keeps rebooting often enough, you get TOLD at boot that the registry
>>is corrupt you moron!
>>
>
>Bob you are the one that is full of shit.  The thousands of posts about the
>creeping registry corruption are as full of shit as you.  The causes are
>exactly as Drestin said.  People futzing with their systems.
>

Futzing? I can show you a WHOLE room of computers that will corrupt the
registry by just installing a cdrom...

If you call THAT futzing... then Windows must truly suck... better than Linda
Lovelace too!

>>> If you are a 10,000 seat MS user than you might very well have been able
>>> to get MS techs to arrive physically on your site to assist debugging
>>
>>Those workstations, as stated previously, are spread out over many
>>clients. They are not in one place. But you knew that and deliberately
>>ignored it so as to try to justify the crap put out by the company which
>>obviously pays you, - namely MicroSoft.
>>
>
>Are you saying you didn't adminstrate them from a central location, didn't
>have a test environment, didn't have corporate standards.  Jeeeze no wonder
>you didn't have any stability.  Look for a new line of work.
>

You can't do that with windows... Well... it's a twist. But if your winnt
server
is running from a remote location... then HOW in the heel do you expect to
reboot it from a central location?

>>> (if you really had 10,000 seats with Win on them and didn't bootleg your
>>> way past the licensing, you'd be in a position to ring up Redmond and
>>> have them fly two techs out most any day of the week, they're pretty
>>> cool about it, I can give you the name of some of my fav. techs).
>>
>>Calling Redmond is a total waste of time. They do absolutely nothing more
>>than point fingers at hardware vendors, software vendors, etc.
>>
>>> Now, Bob, have you considered something here:
>>> Win9x is the OS for the masses. You install it at your company because
>>> the users demand it. Even mangement that starts by insisting on
>>> something else eventually gives in because all it's hirees only know
>>> Windows and they are far less productive using anything else and the
>>> learning curves are counter productive.
>>
>>More pure MS hype and lie. Employees will use what the institution
>>provides or find other employment. There was much wailing and bitching and
>>complaining at many of these clients sites when they were forced by a bad
>>management decisions to abandon WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS. We are correcting
>>this problem on an ongoing basis by reverting them to other alternatives
>>which allow proper use of WP.
>>
>
>WordPerfect runs perfectly on Win9x too, or did that little snippet get past
>your built in anti MS bias.
>
>>> So, with Win9x installed, everyone and his sister think they are free to
>>> install any Win app they can download, bootleg, borrow or steal. Revisit
>>> any Win9x machine you installed 6 months ago and that nice Ghosted load
>>> you had there has been changed, manipulated, updated, backdated and
>>> messed with a dozen times over.
>>
>>Not frequently. Most have not been altered from the original install other
>>than adding of workproduct.
>>
>
>Bull shit,  You were simply incapable of detecting the real problem.
>

A lot of coporate fat clients are "just run" and never upgraded by the user.
Fact is, most of your typical office workers wouldn't even know what to do
once they operate out of their... application... My boss is a GREAT example of
this. He's always thumping his chest about win98 and how superior it is to
everything else... but once he get's out of "his application expertise" he's
totally lost and has no idea what he's doing... While he spends hours and
dollars getting help from MS tech support... I'm happy as hell (productive
too)
running OS2 on my laptop. In fact, until I told him about the difference, he
actually thought OS2 was windows... :')

>>>Shutdowns without shutting down,
>>
>>Something Windows doesn't handle very well at all. A serious flaw in the
>>program. And one which must frequently be resorted to when Win 9x chooses
>>to lock up the keyboard and mouse or refuses to shut down.
>>
>
>And OS/2 does? HA HA HA HA......
>

Any OS is vulnerable to problems if it's "dropped" during disk IO, but windows
is probably the only one that has a propensity for clobbering files... just
for the fun of it... :')

>>apps installed and their directories deleted instead of uninstalled.
>>
>>Something that should be readily fixable which it is not. This is a
>>serious problem with Win9x.
>>
>
>And it is fixable for someone with the wherewithal to learn the tools they
>use.
>

It's a cinch that MicroSoft doesn't use them!

>>Joes> favorite Win 3.11 screen saver (Johnny castaway was so popular at
>>one > site that we had to institute a "You got Johnny, you got no job" >
>>policy). The OS gets used and abused.
>>
>>How come, then, the same users doing the same things they have always been
>>doing don't have problems once Windows is replaced by a good operating
>>system? Tell me that you idiot.
>>
>
>OS/2 wont solve these problems any better, and in fact will exacerbate the
>situation since the methods of monitoring, robust network clients and
>centralized administration do not exist.
>

You've never seen Wseb?

>>>And these computer "idiots" screw
>>> it up and it starts to do what any OS messed with does, it crashes. And
>>> your users aren't going to admit it happened after they installed print
>>> shop master gold 6.5 from '97, tried it again when it complained about
>>> some driver conflict error thing-a-ma-bob, then finally installed print
>>> master '98 in the same directory (cause the names sounded alike so they
>>> are probably the same program right?) and then when it was really
>>> screwed up tried to uninstall the first one first and then when trying
>>> to uninstall the second one and it wouldn't even run the uninstall so
>>> they just deleted the directory and THEN called you to say: "Windows is
>>> crashing in, ummmmm, WORD, yeah, WORD a lot" - you come over and say:
>>> Gee, the OS sucks, my perfect users are suffering, I'll install
>>> something else.
>>
>>A stable, properly designed operating system wouldn't be crashed by such
>>things. That Windows is while others are not (or with several magnitudes
>>fewer occurances) is proof that Windows is an abortion and fatally flawed
>>operating system.
>>
>
>You left out properly implemented.  If you don't set it up correctly, and
>your own posts have shown that you weren't capable of doing so, any OS can
>become a disaster but that's not the OS's fault that's yours.

For what? Installing an OS and having it go down on a regular basis is THE
USERS' FAULT? Wow! You've been reading too much of MicroSofts propaganda...
It's NEVER their fault, it's bad install or bad hardware or bad third party
programming practices...

>>> So, you go and install OS/2 or even worse, Linux on their desktop. What
>>> happens. Gee, they run the one or two authorized apps cause they are
>>> forced to learn them. The OS itself is so alien and hard to use and
>>> unintuitive and intimidating. They have nothing to install on it
>>> themselves cause no one they know uses it or has any cute
>>> frog-in-the-blender games to send them. All their kids software at home
>>> won't install as soon as it's put in the CD-ROM anymore and even most
>>> java apps on the web fail under the slowest netscape browser they could
>>> sneak in. Basically they stop abusing/using the OS and JUST run their
>>> two apps (or app suites).
>>
>>Even if that were true which of course it is not, this is what employers
>>want their people to be doing. They don't want them playing games, doing
>>kids homework, etc. In fact, more than 40% of the workstations are set up
>>without a floppy drive and without a CD (or with same disabled) just to
>>prevent this sort of misuse of an employer's property.
>>
>
>You are now asserting you did this with the Win9x?

If you don't there's always the chance that someone knows HOW to install said
games and "stuff". Removing floppies and cdroms is pretty common...

>> And you think, gee, we have no more "OS
>>> failures" - not realizing, it's cause they aren't doing anything but
>>> running two apps instead of previously actually playing with the OS,
>>> changing color depth, desktop resolution, running active desktop with
>>> push channels, setting themes and generally mucking about in the OS
>>> configuration. Control panel is there and it's easy to play with, let's
>>> run with it!
>>
>>Again, a fatal flaw in Window's design. Control panel should be
>>unavailable to users.
>>
>It can be if you use the policies as stated by drestin.
>

It can't be. Windows was and is designed to be a single user OS... everything
else is just layers and layers of patches... Now to be sold as Win2K...

What a croc...


--

*******************************************************************************

*            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...
*
*       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.151 for your next java project at:
*
*
*
*                      GET IT NOW! WHILE IT'S STILL FREE!
*
*
*
*                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx
*
*******************************************************************************


/----------------------------------------\
| From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
|         [e-mail]             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TEAM-NETREXX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            21-Oct-99 22:29:19
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 21:24:22
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 14:09:16, Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>
wrote:

> On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net posted :
>
> ==8<===
> > The fact that so many people use and applaude what is in essence a toy
> > operating system; the fact that their ignorance has done serious
> > damage to my operating system of choice (which has nothing toyish
> > about it); the fact that even the serious brother of the toy operating
> > system is inferior to my operating system of choice, and yet the
> > ignorami of the world think otherwise and thusly cause even more
> > damage to my operating system of choice; the fact that the maker of
> > said toy operating system now thinks himself in a position where he
> > owns the minds of the computer idiots of the world (so there isn't
> > much to own, but still...); the fact that so many people not only
> > don't object to the business techniques of the maker of said toy
> > operating system, but even applaude those techniques and will scorn
> > those who point out the fact that they are not only illegal but
> > unethical...
>
> How can such strong convictions be based on hearsay.
>
What hearsay? Anyone with two open eyes can see the business tactics
Microsoft will stoop to. And I don't think it's fair to refer to the
proceedings of the DoJ trial as "hearsay".

> I suggest strongly that you stop making such strong opinions off what
> people tell you and use the OS's yourself with an open mind, then draw
> your own conclusions.
>
Nah. That'd be the smart thing to do. It's not controversial enough.

> > So yes, I guess there might be something like a general feeling of
> > injustice involved here.
>
> The injustice I see is you're anti-Windows OS rantings based solely on
> hearsay.
>
?
Is this some new UseNet tactic I haven't heard of yet: If you don't
like something, just call it "hearsay" and it's okay? It does seem to
get around these days...

> ==8<===
> > You really believe Win95 is G*d's answer to UI, don't you?
>
> No I don't. What gave you that impression? You made a ridiculously
> unfair, trolling statement, with an attitude borne solely from second
> hand information. I stepped forward to let you know that I see you for
> what you are. That's all.
>
> > * Any* operating system one is not familiar with will present a
> > struggle.
>
> Why do you say that? Once I sorted out OS/2, it wasn't a struggle. I
> enjoyed using it and learning how to do so.
>
I'm referring to the "sorting out" stage. But, to use a famous quote,
"it takes decent reading skills to notice that".

> Many others, in fact, most others who use OS/2 don't have the sort of
> problems that I had with OS/2 initially so I don't and I can't really
> hold it against OS/2 per se.
>
And I said different things about my experiences with Win95 - where?

> > (OK, so Windows more so than others, but that's not the point
> > here).  I assumed that the difference in connecting had something to
> > do with my inexperience with Windows, which is the reason why I've
> > never talked about it before.  I never used it to flame Windows, I
> > never said: "Windows is butt-lazy in connecting to my ISP", I reacted
> > to Bob's statement.
>
> Then what are we supposed to think when you say:
>
>   "giving that this *was* win95 and I was struggling big time, I
> didn't think much of it at the time."
>
That I was using an O/S I was unfamiliar with that did things - to put
it as neutral as possible - "differently" from what I was used to made
me originally think that my experiences with the dialer were my own
fault rather than Win95's shortcomings. Bob Germer has now claimed it
is a bug in Win95 (or rather: another bug), so I brought it up to
support his claim. And that's really all I originally said. How you
get from that to "troll" beats me.

> I just love how you stressed the word 'was' there. It brings across
> your biased POV.
>
Of course I'm biased, Ali. This is COOA, after all. If I can't be
biased in the advocacy group of the O/S I use and love, where else
could I?

> > Like I said: general inexperience with the thing, combined with its
> > overall unintuitiveness. But again, that comparison may not be fair:
> > I'm used to an OOUI (the best OOUI in the known universe, for that
> > matter), so anything will be slightly off-putting. I will even curse
> > my Psion 3a sometimes, although that little mongrel has a *hell* of a
> > UI!
>
> How did you come to that conclusion? Did your OS/2 friends tell you
> that as well? By the way, how does OS/2's OOUI make it easier than in
> Windows to dial-up to the internet? Please tell me how it shone in
> this regard, so much for that matter, that it puts that horrible
> Windows user interface to shame, and in so doing, making it a mighty,
> unsurprising struggle for you? </sarcasm>
>
I referred to OS/2's OOUI nature to illustrate the fact that I have
troubles getting around in Win95. It had nothing to do with dialing in
and I really don't see how you make that connection.

BTW, I happen to notice an end-marker for the sarcasm-attribute, but I
missed the opener. Have you been in sarcasm mode all this time?

> > I reacted to Bob saying I had experienced a similar problem with the
> > Win95 dialer and suddenly I've been turned into some kind of troll.
>
> But you are a troll and one who bases his trolls on hearsay, i.e.,
> what his OS/2 buddies tell him. That's a sad existence. I've used OS/2
> and loved it for what it was, er is. :) I have my perspective. Do you
> really have yours? I suggest you get your own and stop relying on that
> of others.
>
How can I be a troll by backing up someone else's claim in the very
newsgroup of the O/S I use and support?

Oh, wait. I get it. This stuff has been crossposted to COMNA all this
time.
Well tough; I didn't start the crossposting, so blame the guy who
started it.

> ==8<===
> > _I_reacted_to_Bob_
> > He said the Win95 dialer was slow connecting to IBM.net. Chad Myers
> > practically accused him of making it up, so I said I had experienced
> > the same.
>
> Agreed but that's not all you said or implied.
>
I can't be helt responsible for the things you seem to read between
the lines. Your implications are your own responsibility and no-one
else's.

> > I mentioned the struggling because that's what I do when using Win95:
> > I don't use it often enough to have developed reflexes to work around
> > the O/S's shortcomings <Oh damn! that'll set him off again.
>
> I see that you do have insight into your trolling. You are clearly not
> worth the time.
>
Thank G*d! This was getting boring.

> Have a nice day ... PLONK!

And Ding! Dong! to you, mate.

>
> > Say, this is getting pretty boring. Can I make a new anti-Windows one?
> >
> > Please?
> >
> > Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease?
>
> How old are you anyway?
>
Old enough to say please.


Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

<courtesy mode> no sigline while being crossed-over to COMNA.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]               21-Oct-99 16:17:08
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 21:24:22
Subj: Re: A new client?  Here's an idea:

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:42:14 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:

>
>
>Kim Cheung wrote:
>> >>
>> >> He DID do all that he could.
>> >
>> >Well, the big meeting/decision was on September 16, 1999 (according to
>> >Brad) and Brad does his big post on September 17, 1999.  Obviously, Brad
>> >didn't give himself much time to "do all that he could."
>>
>> One thing I have long learned in dealing with IBM (or any corporation, for
>> that matter) is that all of the ground works must be done before a
particular
>> meeting.   The agenda of a meeting is usually a formality.   This was
>> certainly one of those cases.
>
>Kim, you don't understand.  The decision is not made until the
>decision-maker (whoever or whatever that is) has made it.  *If* the
>decision was made prior to the meeting, then someone or some group was
>opposed.  Obviously then, the proper groundwork was not done if the
>meeting *was* a formality AND the decision was unfavorable.  In such a
>case, the issue should not have even been on the agenda as it is
>pointless and a further waste of the decision-makers time.  In this
>case, additional effort is required to determine who is objecting, what
>their reasons are, and what can be done to mitigate their objections.

That's how you and I would have done it.   Yes.

>The timetable that Brad Wardell has provided, obviously does not allow
>this.  Based on his statements, he was notified of an unfavorable
>decision on 9/16/99 or 9/17/99 and he immediately posts his message to
>the newsgroups on 9/17/99.  Any sort of minimal debriefing and follow-up
>efforts to find out where his proposal ran on the rocks and what could
>be done to resuscitate it would have required efforts expended during a
>timespan of several days.

I don't speak for any of the party involved.   I am only forming my own
opinion base on what I know.


>And that is why I said that he seemed to be
>eager to take 'NO' for an answer--the very statement that you keep
>posting these objections to.
>

My point was very simple: (a) I disagree with the way the aftermeth was
handled.  (b) My opinion is that Stardock wanted to see a new client.
That's all.

>
>>
>> >>
>> >[snip]

>> No, I am not trying to rewrite history.   May be he didn't convey the
message
>> very effectively but I know that for all the parties involved, the message
>> was suppose to be: IBM has indicated that they have no plans for an
>> OS/2-based client of their own AT THIS TIME.   (Didn't he say something
about
>> IBM going into garden hose business or something like that?)
>
>Don't know about the garden hose business.  But Wardell's words speak
>for themselves.  I don't know why you keep trying to add to them or
>supplement them with the 'AT THIS TIME' stuff that Wardell didn't say.

Because that's the fact.   I am interested in addressing the truth.

>And why are you working so hard to convey his message for him?

>Do you
>have a business relationship with Wardell?

None whatsoever.    We have completely different market.   I don't see
anything even remotely overlap between the two companies.

>
>You are really getting 'out there.'  'That would not be accurate?'  Are
>you trying to reword Brad's statement?  Has he given you permission to
>do this?  I have accurately quoted his statement.  I have given you the
>link to it.  And you say it is not accurate???

My statement is very clear, to my knowledge, nobody at IBM used the word
"NEVER".    I am not rewording anybody's message.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               21-Oct-99 18:52:24
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 21:24:22
Subj: Re: [tholen] Dave Tholen and song lyrics

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>> Richard R. Klemmer writes:
>
> >>>>> Marty wrote:
>
> >>>>>> I started singing
> >>>>>> Bye, bye Mr. Dave Tholen guy.
> >>>>>> Spent a while out of my killfile
> >>>>>> till my humor ran dry.
> >>>>>> And good old Dave
> >>>>>> my claims he did deny,
> >>>>>> saying this is where the argument dies
> >>>>>> this is where the argument dies....
>
> >>>>> Marty, please stop.  I'm laughing so hard my eyes are watering. :-)
>
> >>>> Control yourself, Richard.
>
> >>> What makes you think he's not controlled, Dave?
>
> >> What he wrote, Marty.
>
> > Sorry, but if that doesn't work as evidence for me, it can't work as
> > evidence for you.
>
> Incorrect.  It does work as evidence for me.

Well thank you for finally admitting your double standard.  It's the
first step toward getting better.  Of course, you'll now proceed to
point out that your evidence is backed by solid fact while mine is
backed by lies and conjecture, after pointing out, of course, that I've
erroneously presupposed that you need to get better or that anything was
wrong.  Well, save it for someone who cares.

> > How ironic that you speak of inconsistency.
>
> What's allegedly ironic about it, Marty?

See above.

> >>>>> Wierd Al has nothing over you.
>
> >>>> On the contrary, he has plenty over Marty.
>
> >>> Quite a bit of money, and he's far more prolific.
>
> >> Glad you agree that he has plenty over you.
>
> > As he also has plenty over you, but you'd never admit that.
>
> Irrelevant, as no comparison was being made between me and Al.

"As he also has plenty over you, but you'd never admit that."
How predictable.

You are more than willing to point out the inferiorities of others, but
when it comes to admitting a simple, obvious fact of your own
inferiority, you will write it off as irrelevant.  How arrogant.  But
don't worry, you're the best Dave Tholen you can be.

> >>>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>
> >>>> And the inconsistency.
>
> >>> So you appreciate inconsistency Dave?
>
> >> I indicated no appreciation, Marty.  I simply noted the existence of
> >> your inconsistency.
>
> > Thanks for noting the existence of my inconsistency.
>
> Your welcome.

What about my welcome?

> > And the appreciation.
>
> Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?

Erroneously presupposing that I ever have had reading comprehension
problems and further supposing that they persist even until now.

> I indicated no appreciation;

Which is why you undoubtedly have so many friends.

> I simply noted the existence of your inconsistency.

While neatly overlooking your own.

> >>> Well then, you're quite welcome.
>
> >> For what, Marty?
>
> > See below.
>
> Below doesn't indicate why you said that, Marty.

Incorrect.

> >>> It's an honor to know that my inconsistency is appreciated by the master
> >>> of inconsistency himself.
>
> >> I indicated no appreciation, Marty.  I simply noted the existence of
> >> your inconsistency.
>
> > Balderdash Dave.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

See above.

> > Your statement is gramatically impeccable.
>
> Irrelevant, Marty, as the issue was not grammatical correctness.
>
> > And full of shit.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can, Marty.  Why did you write above:

I see you've failed to comprehend how I was applying your own idiocy
back at you.  It figures.

Let me spell it out for you:
> > Thanks for the laugh.
>
> >> And the inconsistency.

This equals:  Thanks for the laugh and the inconsistency
Which equals: Thanks for the laugh and thanks for the inconsistency.

That's the way English works.  When you use conjunctions like "and", it
links to the previous phrase.

> >>>>> And I'd like to point out to everyone that Marty's song lyrics weren't
> >>>>> overly insulting to Dave Tholen, either.
>
> >>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they were.  I simply noted how
> >>>> that Marty's killfile isn't working as intended.
>
> >>> Which is exactly what any relaxed, well adjusted individual would have
> >>> felt the need to do.
>
> >> Odd that you recently claimed that I'm not relaxed.  Do make up you
> >> mind, Marty.
>
> > Obviously your sarcasm circuits are malfunctioning again.
>
> Illogical, given that no "circuits" are involved, Marty.

from tholenlogic.c line 412:

unknown_word = literal_interpretation( phrase );
if ( unknown_word != NULL )
{
    if ( isplural( unknown_word ) )
    {
        verb = "are";
    } else {
        verb = "is";
    }

    printf( "Illogical, given that no \"%s\" %s involved, %s",
      unknown_word, verb, name );
    return PHRASE_ANSWERED;
} else if ...

> > Perhaps if you were more relaxed, you would have picked up on it.
>
> More relaxed than what, Marty?

More relaxed than you are now and were at the time of the previous
posting.

> >>>>> As for the rest of his posts... :-)
>
> >>>> What about them?
>
> >>> See above.
>
> > note: no response
>
> Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?

See above.

> My response appears immediately below.  Count the levels of indentation.

It was irrelevent to my statement as indicated by your divergent, "I'd
rather see your previous post..."

> >> I'd rather see your previous post, in which you wrote:
>
> > Typical evasion.
>
> Incorrect.

Incorrect.  How is a complete changing of the topic to what you'd
"rather" discuss not a tactic of evasion?  I'd rather discuss what is
happening with OS/2, but you are obviously incapable of such a
discussion.

> >> M] [Note:  no further response on my part is forthcoming on this matter]
> >>
> >> and to which I responded:
> >>
> >> DT] Famous last words.
> >>
> >> Once again, my expectation was fulfilled, because here you are, posting
> >> another response on this matter.
>
> > Have I responded to that branch of the thread?
>
> Ah, I see you're now resorting to a semantic argument over "this matter"
> being different from "that branch".

Actually, *your* argument would be that they would be different.  Do try
to keep your position straight in your own mind if not in your postings.

> > If I have, please show me where because I'd like to read what my next
> > song would be.
>
> Illogical, given that postings do not need to include a song to be
> considered a "further response".

Well, since I would have written it, it is likely that it would contain
a song, however, since we both know it doesn't exist, you can drop your
irrelevant point.

> > Speaking of fulfilling expectations, you're getting quite boring to
> > deal with.
>
> Obviously not, given your recent rash of responses that demonstrate the
> failure of your alleged killfile.

You obviously have no concept of how message filters work in Netscape.

It is illogical to conclude that responses to your postings are
indicative of your not being boring.

> > Try to mix it up a bit so you're not so predictable.
>
> You haven't been able to predict my responses, Marty.

Incorrect.

> I predicted that you would continue to respond, however, when I wrote
"Famous
> last words".

Prove it, if you think you can.

> I suggest you comtemplate your own predictability.

I defer to the "viewing audience" for a judgement on who is more
predictable with a high degree of confidence.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 23:46:00
  To: All                                               21-Oct-99 21:24:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7uncpv$fr9$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>>>>> Curtis Bass wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Ahh, the wonders of the Ambiguities of English . . .
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's one problem with debate -- one has to choose words
very
> >>>>>>>> carefully.  To say that "X implements Y functionality" really
> >>>>>>>> doesn't mean much, unless it's qualified. Does X implement
> >>>>>>>> *all* of Y's funtionality, or only *some* of it?
> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately, the original quote can be correctly
interpreted
> >>>>>>>> both ways, and arguing that one interpretation is "more
> >>>>>>>> correct" than the other is just as meaningless as the
original
> >>>>>>>> quote itself.
>
> >>>>>>> This is essentially a correct analysis.
>
> >>>>>> Incorrect.
>
> >>>>> No, it is correct.
>
> >>>> Balderdash, Lucien.
>
> >>> Nope, it is correct.
>
> >> Balderdash, Lucien.
>
> >>>> I explained why it is incorrect.
>
> >>> And your explanation is wrong.
>
> >> I see you're pontificating once again.
>
> > On the contrary, I'm merely pointing out that your explanation is
wrong.
>
> You can't do that by pontificating, Lucien.

Again the alleged pontification. I'm merely countering your illogical
explanation.

> >> Where's your explanation?
>
> > It's in the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> That thread is irrelevant here,

On the contrary, that thread is quite relevant.

> given that there is no word analogous
> to "prevent" in the present situation.

Wrong. There is a direct analogy. The evidence is in the "costly
mistakes" thread.

> Of course, I've told you that
> before.

And you've thereby unwittingly repeated your mistake.

> > Find it there, if you think you can.
>
> I already know I can't,

Translation: David can't find it there, because he cannot understand
the substance of the thread.

> because it isn't there.

On the contrary, the evidence is there, in full detail.

> >> Incorrect, given that there is no word analogous to "prevent" in
> >> "implements Java 1.2 functionality".
>
> > Wrong.
>
> More pontification.

Again the alleged pontification. I'm merely countering your incorrect
statement.

> >> You have yet to succeed, Lucien.
>
> > On the contrary, I did succeed in a manner that was very expensive
for
> > you.
>
> A rather blatant lie.

A rather blatant statement of the truth: that you were handed an
unexpected and punishing defeat in a public forum in front of your
peers.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               21-Oct-99 23:59:20
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:00
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>

In article <7unguj$hgd$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina writes:
>
> >>>>> I think I will indulge in some tholenisms, just for the bad old
> >>>>> times' sake.
>
> >>>> I wish you would, like indulging in some logic, but you keep
> >>>> missing the mark by a wide margin.
>
> >>> I'm afraid tholenism and logic are incompatible,
>
> >> Incorrect.
>
> > Tholenism is a word I just invented.
>
> Incorrect.

Can you show a previous definition of the term tholenism which shows
it is compatible with logic?

> >>>>>>> You were not nominated because of the fact you present, but
> >>>>>>> because of another.
>
> >>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what
motivated
> >>>>>> you to submit a nomination.
>
> >>>>> The fact for which you were nominated is not the fact that
> >>>>> motivated me to nominate you.
>
> >>>> You just contradicted yourself.  You just said, in effect, that
> >>>> your motivation was not what motivated you.
>
> >>> No, you just didn't understand me.
>
> >> Incorrect.  I understood what you wrote.  If you didn't mean what
you
> >> wrote, that's your problem, not mine.
>
> > I wrote what I meant.
>
> Incorrect, unless of course you meant to contradict yourself.

Or, of course, you could have misunderstood what I wrote.

> > If you fail to read what I write and understand what it means it's
> > your problem.
>
> I understood exactly what you wrote, Roberto.

No.

> >>> I don't nominate every kook I meet.
>
> >> Obviously, given that you didn't nominate yourself.
>
> >>> I nominate kooks I meet and dislike.
>
> >> Is that why you didn't nominate yourself, because you like
yourself?
>
> > I already said several times I don't believe I am a kook.
>
> You also claimed that one's self isn't in a position to make that
> evaluation.

I didn't say that. I said one's self is not impartial in the subject.

> > But yes, I do like myself, so I fail both criteria.
>
> Funny that you're now relying on self-evaluation.

Well, you seem to think it's ok when applied to you. It's just
another example of tholenism.

> >>> You were nominated because of the fact that you are (IMHO) a kook
>
> >> Too bad you can't prove it.
>
> > I can prove that it is my opinion.
>
> Your opinion is irrelevant, Roberto.  The facts are relevant.

I only need my opinion to convince myself to nominate you.

> >>> and that I don't like you.
>
> >> I'm not surprised, given how badly my evidence made you look.
>
> > Nice to see you know I don't like you.
>
> I didn't say that I knew it, Roberto.  I said I wasn't surprised.

But you do know. Nice to see it.

> > You are assuming motives that are wrong, though.
>
> You mean you didn't mind being made to look bad, Roberto?

I don't give a rat's ass how you make me look.

> >>> Your nomination, however says "this guy is a kook because he
argues
> >>> with eliza" (not an actual quote).
>
> >> Which is a lie.
>
> > When I made the nomination it was my belief that you argued with
Eliza.
>
> Your belief is irrelevant, Roberto.  The facts are relevant.

No. My beliefs mark the road for my action. So, my beliefs are
relevant to my actions, and my actions are facts.

> > Saying what one believes to be true can not be a lie.
>
> Incorrect.  I suggest you consult Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.

I don't have access to a copy. Last I checked on a dictionary, a lie
is a false statement said with previous knowledge of its falsehood.

I can't know the falsehood of something I believe true, therefore
something I believe true can't be said by me as a lie.

If your definition of lie is different, feel free to share.

> > It can be a mistake.
>
> And a lie.

How?

> >>> The things mentioned in your nomination are just a subset of the
> >>> personal reasons I had to nominate you,
>
> >> You didn't have to do anything, Roberto.
>
> >>> and therefore, not the same.
>
> >> Not the same as what, Roberto?
>
> > Not the same as "the personal reasons I had to nominate you" Dave.
>
> You didn't have to do anything, Roberto.

I "had" the reasons. I didn't "have" to nominate you. I did it because
I wanted to do it, not because I "had" to.

> >>>>> Your comprehension problems continue.
>
> >>>> How ironic, considering the statement that you just wrote.
>
> >>> And that you completely failed to understand, obviously.
>
> >> Incorrect.  I understood what you wrote.  If you didn't mean what
you
> >> wrote, that's your problem, not mine.
>
> > Deja vu.
>
> It isn't the first time you've had that problem.

Deja vu is not a problem. Or is your "that" not referring to the
previous paragraph, as you say "logically" my "that"s do?

> > I base that claim in that the definition of kook I accept doesn't
> > include that as one of the kook's definig features.
>
> How convenient.  Exactly what does your definition include, Roberto?

Why do you want to know, kook?

> > "A" is "Insisting on mistakes is not kooky.".
> > Your "Not A" is "Insisting that you're right, even long after the
> > source of the error was identified, is.".
>
> Illogical, given that "A" isn't the same in your two instances.

Where's the difference?

> >>>>> Kooky reasons
>
> >>>> What's allegedly "kooky" about the reasons, Roberto?
>
> >>> I'm afraid if you can't see it,
>
> >> I can't see what isn't there to be seen, Roberto.
>
> > That's just a subset of the things you can't see.
>
> Prove that it is there to be seen, Roberto.

Prove that what you can't see isn't there, Dave. I didn't claim there
was anything to be seen. You claim there isn't. The onus is on you.
I only claimed that if you couldn't see "it" you wouldn't understand
"it". If "it" doesn't exist, you can not understand "it".

> > You can't see protons either.
>
> That depends on your definition of "see".  It's also irrelevant.

Look in that dictionary you mentioned before.

> > That doesn't imply protons are not there to be seen.
>
> I see you've got the logic backwards.  I'm not surprised.

My logic is straight. Your mind, however, is way too schematic.

> > Therefore, that you can't see what's kooky about the reasons is not
> > proof that there is nothing kooky about the reasons.
>
> That there aren't reasons does explain why I can't see them, however.

It is one of the possible explanations. Of course it is not the only
valid one. Prove it, if you think you can.

> See what I mean about you having it backwards?

See what I mean about being too schematic?

> >>> you can't understand the explanation.
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that there is a logical
explanation.
>
> > I know there is one.
>
> Feel free to present your knowledge, if you think you can, Roberto.

I feel free. Thank you!

> > I just believe you are uncapable of understanding it.
>
> What you believe is irrelevant, Roberto; what you can prove is
> relevant.

I say what I believe is relevant. Prove it isn't, if you think you can.

> >>>>> for a kook.
>
> >>>> Such as yourself.
>
> >>> I actually meant you, (that was obvious for every careful reader).
>
> >> Too bad you can't prove it.
>
> > Prove what?
>
> That I'm a "kook".

Why should I?

> >>>>> Why should I nominate a person I do not believe to be a kook?
>
> >>>> Your beliefs are irrelevant, Roberto.  Your actions are relevant.
>
> >>> So, you are saying I should nominate a person I don't believe to
> >>> be a kook?
>
> >> Still having reading comprehension problems, Roberto?  I'm saying
> >> that your actions are relevant.
>
> > And here I was, believing that you were in some way responding to my
> > question.
>
> I did respond to your question, Roberto, correcting your
miscomprehension
> of what I wrote.  You asked what I was saying, and I told you what I
was
> saying.

I didn't ask you what you were saying, originally. I asked
"Why should I nominate a person I do not believe to be a kook?"

You have not given a real answer to that question. Even a "I will
not answer that question" will do.

> Here's a simple question for you, Roberto.  You can answer by yes or
no.
> "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

That is not a simple question that can be answered by yes or no. Mine
was.

> One of these days you may finally realize that not all questions that
> can be answered by yes or no should be answered by yes or no.

I never claimed that. Non sequitur.

> > Or you can give a yes/no and explanation.
>
> I see you still haven't figured out that a yes or no is not always
> an appropriate answer.

I can answer your question easily with a yes/no and an explanation.

> > What you gave was a non-response.
>
> Incorrect.  I corrected your miscomprehension of what I wrote.

But you did not answer the question. Therefore, a non-response.

> >>> but I was not the one that argued with Eliza,
>
> >> Neither did I.
>
> > So you say. Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Simple:  look at the addresses of the postings to which I responded
> and note how they coincide with real individuals who have contributed
> to this newsgroup.

Your writing was a conscious response to text that was composed by the
non-sentient entity known as Eliza. That Donal K. Fellows performed as
a communication media for Eliza, not unlike a phone, does not make
your response a response to Donal K. Fellows.

> >>> and lated denied it, Dave.
>
> >> Why shouldn't I deny something that didn't happen, Roberto?
>
> > Why should you?
>
> Because it didn't happen, Roberto.

Do you routinely deny everything that has not happened?

> >>> Funny that you claim that my saying "Dave is a kook" is "truth by
> >>> proclamation" but your "I am not a kook" is not.
>
> >> Nothing funny about it.  I've referred to actual actions on your
> >> part.  You have not.
>
> > I referred to your argument with Eliza.
>
> What alleged argument with Eliza, Roberto?

The one quoted in your KOTM nomination, of course. Are there any others
I don't know about?

> > That was an actual action on your part.
>
> Incorrect, Roberto.

Was that argument with Eliza not made by you?

> >>>>>>> Fear not, you're still a kook in my heart.
>
> >>>>>> What you have in your heart is irrelevant to me.
>
> >>>>> But not to me,
>
> >>>> Then start your own newsgroup and post articles to which you can
> >>>> respond.
>
> >>> If we apply the same standard to you, the world would be a better
> >>> place quickly.
>
> >> Illogical, given that USENET doesn't extend to the entire world
> >> population.
>
> > Improving a part of the world improves the world as a whole,
>
> It only improves a part, Roberto.

The world's condition is nothing but the condition of its parts.

> > in the same way that curing your hand improves your health.
>
> Curing your hand won't get rid of the common cold, Roberto.

Of course not. You will, however, feel better. Your condition
will be measurably better. Before you had a cold and an injured
hand. After, you have a cold.

> >>>>> Anyway, that was not the only time you argued with a computer
> >>>>> program.
>
> >>>> I've never argued with a computer program.
>
> >> Note:  no response.
>
> > Ok, here you have it: yes you did.
>
> Balderdash, Roberto.

Nice thoughtful response. More pavlovian responses from doggie Dave.

> >>>>> Do you authorize me to show here the other one?
>
> >>>> There is no "other one".
>
> >>> Then authorize me to show the exchange you had with my email
> >>> bouncer.
>
> >> I had no argument with your email bouncer, Roberto.
>
> > Then authorize me to show the exchange that you say was not an
argument.
>
> Do you even know what an argument is, Roberto?

Yes. Now answer the question.

> > If you have nothing to hide, why hide?
>
> I'm not hiding, Roberto.

Ok, can I show those emails, then?

> The fact that you send email, but don't want
> to receive responses, is yet another piece of evidence for your
> bizarre behavior.

I have never sent an email and asked not to get a response.
I have configured a computer program to politely inform people that I
am not reading their responses, however. Rarely has anyone continued
to exchange email with that program, with the notable exception of
some Dave Tholen.

> Do you deny sending me email?

I deny having sent you 7 specific emails, which were sent by a computer
program, and to which you wrote responses.

> >>>> I respond to postings made by people.
> >>>> Some of those people post responses using personal attacks; some
> >>>> post responses using deletion tactics to avoid dealing with
certain
> >>>> issues; some post responses generated by computer programs; I
deal
> >>>> with all those responses.
>
> >>> A posting generated by a computer program without human
intervention
> >>> is hardly a posting made by "people", Dave.
>
> >> The Eliza responses involved human intervention, Roberto, a fact
that
> >> you still don't realize.
>
> > And there was no human intervention when you argued with my bouncer,
> > Dave,
>
> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of some argument,
Roberto.

Do you authorize me to show those emails that you say were not an
argument?

> > and that was the specific instance I was talking about,
>
> You're still erroneously presupposing the existence of some argument,
> Roberto.

Do you authorize me to show those emails that you say were not an
argument?

> > There is also that pathetic thing about writing faked
> > automatic responses imitating the output of a program...
>
> Now what are you talking about, Roberto?

Do you authorize me to show the emails sent by you which are identical
to the output of a program which you could not possible have had access
to?

--
Roberto Alsina


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 00:18:02
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:00
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7und7t$fr9$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >> I said it was unnecessary because my memories of it are
> >> still quite clear.
>
> > It is necessary; your memories of the thread are muddled.
>
> Incorrect, Lucien.

No, it is correct.

> Feel free to identify any incorrect memory of the
> thread, if you think you can.

You unwittingly used my "costly mistakes" reasoning in your argument
about the JDK statements.
Clearly, you've forgotten what your argument was (and never understood
mine).

Evidence in full can be found in the "costly mistakes" thread.

> Failure to do so will reinforce my
> accusation that you're simply pontificating.

See above.

> > Your argument was unwittingly illogical
>
> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

The proof is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

> > and you lost the argument,
>
> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

The proof is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

> > as was plain to all involved.
>
> Who was involved, Lucien?  I'm asking to find out who you're trying to
> speak for.

Translation: David wishes to deflect the attention of the reader away
from his refusal to review the painful (for him) evidence of the
illogic of his arguments contained in the "costly mistakes" thread.

> >> Incorrect.  I see you still can't do any better than simple
> >> pontification.
>
> > What alleged pontification?
>
> Yours, Lucien.

Typical Tholen unsubstantiated claim.

> > I'm merely countering your illogic.
>
> You can't do it with simple pontification, Lucien.

Again the alledged pontification.

> >> Irrelevant, given that I indicated that you *can* run.  I never
said
>
> > Irrelevant, given that this thread is not concerned with running or
> > hiding.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I never said it is concerned with running or
> hiding.

Continued irrelevant statements, the tools of the ineffective advocate.

> >> You've not countered my arguments,
>
> > I have countered your arguments at length and with evidence.
>
> Where is this alleged evidence, Lucien?

The evidence is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

> >> and my arguments are not uneducated
>
> > Your arguments are profoundly uninformed.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

The proof, in full, is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

> >> at all, Lucien.  Once again, all you're doing is pontificating.
>
> > Again the alleged pontification.
>
> It's not merely alleged, Lucien.  It's been identified repeatedly
> in this thread.

On the contrary, you've merely identified my countering of your illogic
and irrelevancies.

> > I'm merely countering your illogic and irrelevancies.
>
> What alleged illogic and irrelevancies, Lucien?

See above and the "costly mistakes" thread.

> >>> making no attempt to run or hide.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that I indicated that you can run and can't hide.
>
> > More completely irrelevant statements, the tools of the ineffective
> > advocate.
>
> On the contrary, my statements are quite relevant to the statements

Your statements are irrelevant to your JDK statements, or the evidence
in the "costly mistakes" thread.

> of yours they follow.

Irrelevant, given that the thread is about your JDK statements and the
evidence in the "costly mistakes" thread.

> How ironic that you should refer to the tools
> of the ineffective advocate, given your use of pontification.

Illogical, given that the use of pontification has not been proven.

Your illogic, however, has been repeatedly and painfully (for you)
proven.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 22-Oct-99 01:12:12
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:00
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7uneg0$g7g$[e-mail]>,
 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>>> Then why did you claim that JDK 1.1.8 implements Java 2 security
classes
>>>>>> when it does not?
>
>>>>> Prove that it does not, Mike.  I've provided a reference to my evidence.
>>>>> All you've done is pontificate, as usual.
>
>>>> IBM's additional security classes are in com.ibm.* packages.
>
>>> We're talking about JDK 1.1.8, Mike.
>
>> I know, Dave; and in IBM's JDK 1.1.8, IBM implemented additional
>> security classes in the com.ibm.* packages.  What part of that didn't
>> you understand?
>
>The relevance, Mike.

Figures.  The com.ibm.* packages are not in JDK 1.2; thus, they do not
contain "Java 2 security classes".  That's the relevence.

>>>> Those packages are not in JDK 1.2.
>
>>> IBM hasn't released a JDK 1.2 for OS/2, Mike.
>
>> No duh.  But the fact that the so-called "Java 2 security classes" are
>> not in Java 2, means they aren't Java 2 security classes.
>
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail] indicates otherwise,
>Mike.

Irrelevent.  The actual contents of the JDK supercedes the earlier
newsgroup article that predicted what the JDK would contain.  Consider
these two pieces of evidence:

  a. In January, IBM claims that a future OS/2 JDK will be faster than
     all other JDKs.
  b. In July, IBM ships the JDK in question, and tests show that it is
     *not* faster than all other JDKs.

Item b. is more compelling evidence than item a., since item a. is
merely a prediction, wherease item b. represents reality.

Such is the case here.  You point to a press release about a future JDK.
I point to the actual JDK in question.  I win.

>>>> If you refer to those classes from your program, your program will fail
>>>> on a reference implementation of Java 2.
>
>>> Prove it, Mike.
>
>> Look at the contents of rt.jar in a reference implementation of Java 2.
>> There are no security classes in the com.ibm.* package.
>
>MT] in IBM's JDK 1.1.8, IBM implemented additional security classes in the
>MT] com.ibm.* packages.
>
>Do make up your mind, Mike.

Do try to follow along, Dave.  The rt.jar file in Java 2 contains no
security classes in the com.ibm.* packages.  My statement stands.  You
are obviously in way over your head, and you really don't understand
what I'm talking about at all.

>> The classes IBM included in their version of JDK 1.1.8 are not part of
>> Java 2.  Any reference to those classes will fail, since the classes
>> will not be found.  That's how Java works, Dave; if you refer to a
>> missing class, you get an exception.
>
>The key word here is "if".  Prove that the classes are missing, Mike.

public class DaveIsAMoron {
  public static void main(String[] args) {
    try {
      Class c =
Class.forName("com.ibm.security12.java.util.AbstractCollection");
    }
    catch (ClassNotFoundException ex) {
      System.err.println("Dave, you're an idiot.");
    }
  }
}

Run that class on a Java 2 reference platform.  It'll give you your
answer.

>>>> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.
>
>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>
>> I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>
>Wouldn't be the first time you've looked at something and missed it.

Despite your "typical invective", my statement stands.

>> The classes are in jar files, which are easily read on non-OS/2
>> platforms.  You'd know this if you actually knew something about
>> the subject at hand.
>
>I know what IBM wrote, Mike, and they are more familiar with their
>product than you are.

Actually, I'm more familiar with their product than IBM was when
the article in question was written.  At that time, the product
did not exist.  You information is old, and incorrect.

If you have any current information to back you up, please, feel
free to share it.

>>>>>> Then why did you claim Swing is part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8
>>>>>> when it is not?
>
>>>>> Prove that it does not, Mike.  I've provided a reference to my evidence.
>>>>> All you've done is pontificate, as usual.
>
>>>> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.
>
>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>
>> See above.  I see you have no counter-evidence.
>
>On the contrary, I have
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]

And, as I demonstrated, my evidence wins.  Reality beats predictions any
day.

>>>> The Swing classes are not included.  You can download them separately,
>
>>> Is that the argument you intend to hang your hat on, Mike???  IBM states
>>> that the functionality was implemented in 1.1.8, and you claim it wasn't
>>> because IBM split the download into multiple components?
>
>> I claimed that Swing isn't part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.  It isn't.
>> It's an add-on, just like it is for other 1.1.x JDKs.
>
>Ah, the old semantic argument.  Exactly what difference are you trying
>to make between being included and being an add-on, Mike?

Being included means it's part of the JDK.  Being an add-on means it's
an extension.  It does not represent a feature of IBM's JDK 1.1.8 that
isn't in other versions of JDK 1.1.8, since it isn't in IBM's, and
it's available for all the JDKs.

>>>> just as you can download them separately for the reference 1.1.x JDKs.
>
>>> Are they identical, Mike?
>
>> They provide the same functionality and they implement the same API.
>
>I askedif they are identical, Mike.  A simple yes or no would suffice.

Your question is irrelevent; though the classes were compiled with a
different compiler, they provide identical functionality as the
same version of Swing on other platforms.  From a programming standpoint,
they are identical.

>>>>>> Why are you claiming Swing is "Java 1.2 functionality" when you earlier
>>>>>> claimed that only features introduced with Java 1.2 qualify?
>
>>>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]
>
>>>> Irrelevent.  Swing was introduced before Java 1.2.
>
>>> Are you claiming that Swing for 1.1 is identical to Swing for 1.2, Mike?
>
>> No, I'm stating that Swing was introduced before Java 1.2,
>
>The 1.2 version of Swing was not introduced before 1.2, Mike.

Dave, Swing isn't up to version 1.2 yet.  You're flailing really badly.

>> which proves that your claim is incorrect.
>
>It does no such thing, Mike.  My claim is that 1.1.8 implements 1.2
>functionality.  An implementation of Swing for 1.2 in 1.1.8 says
>nothing about when Swing was introduced.

Yet IBM does not implement "Swing for 1.2" in JDK 1.1.8.  They cannot,
as the version of Swing for JDK 1.2 requires features which IBM does
not support in JDK 1.1.8.  They implement Swing for JDK 1.1.*, which
is the same version available for JDK 1.1.* on other platforms.

>>>> No irony involved, Dave, since that article is not the subject
>>>> at hand.
>
>>> On the contrary, it's ironic indeed, given that you were talking about
>>> ignorance of the subject, and the subject is the Java 1.2 functionality
>>> that was implemented in 1.1.8, which the referenced article just
>>> happens to describe, and about which you are ignorant.
>
>> The reference article doesn't describe that at all.
>
>How would you know, Mike, given that you haven't even been able to find
>the article?

Because you presented "the relevant piece" of the article.

>>>> As I mentioned, I couldn't find the message you indicate.
>>>> Repost it, if you wish to refer to it.
>
>>> Here's the relevant piece, Mike:
>>>
>>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security
>>> ] classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's
>>> ] implementation of the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.
>
>> I'll note that the only reference in "the relevant piece" to "Java 2"
>> is "Java 2 security classes".
>
>IBM referred to Java 2 functionality in the plural, Mike, and the
>sentence above refers to more than one item.

I don't see the phrase "Java 2 functionality" in your excerpt, Dave.

>> RMI over IIOP, COMM, and Swing are not referred to as "Java 2
>> functionality".
>
>On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

The basis of "the relevant piece" of the article.

>> In fact, the only piece that might be "Java 2 functionality" is "will
>> include Java 2 security classes."  Interestingly, it's written in future
>> tense.
>
>That's because IBM is talking about the final release, Mike.

So they're making predictions about what the final release will contain.
Glad you agree.

>The article also states:
>
>] the Version 1.1.8 Preview is available today for early testing.
>
>Read the evidence, Mike, before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

As I said, Dave, I couldn't find the article.  So far, nothing you've
presented from the article has disproven my position.  The availability
of a Preview is completely irrelevent.

>> Now that JDK 1.1.8 is actually available, it's clear that
>> "Java 2 security classes" are *not* provided.
>
>Just because you can't find them doesn't mean they're not provided,
>Mike.  Did you bother to download the preview when it was "actually
>available"?

I didn't download the preview, I downloaded the actual release.  The
classes aren't there.  What part of that confuses you?

>>>> In any case, I'll just note that I've referred to the actual contents
>>>> of the JDK in question, and have provided, as evidence, references to
>>>> and quotes from Sun's official web site.
>
>>> Inadequate, Mike.
>
>> On the contrary, the contents of the JDK disprove your claims that it
>> includes the items you claim,
>
>Wouldn't be the first time you've looked at something and missed it.

You've got a horribly weak "counterargument", Dave.  You make not a
single point.

>> and the quotes from Sun's web site prove that the items you mention
>> don't count as "Java 2 functionality".
>
>They do no such thing, Mike.

Yes, Dave, they do.  RMI/IIOP is an addon, the COMM API is standard
extension, and Swing was released before Java 2.

>>>> You, on the other hand, present a reference to a newsgroup
>>>> article,
>
>>> Provided by IBM, Mike.
>
>> Tell me, Dave, when was the article in question posted?
>
>June 12, Mike.

I see.  Since then, of course, JDK 1.1.8 has been released.  Your
information is out of date.

>> Then tell me when JDK 1.1.8 was released.
>
>The preview was available the same day, Mike.  That's why it says
>
>] the Version 1.1.8 Preview is available today for early testing.
>
>Ignorance of the evidence will get you nowhere, Mike.

It isn't the preview I'm talking about, Dave; I'm talking about the
actual release.  The actual release is, obviously, more recent
than the article in question.  The contents of the actual release
supercede the prediction of what the release would contain.

My evidence supercedes yours.  I win.  If you want continue, find
something current, not a prediction of the future.

     - Mike


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 22-Oct-99 01:20:13
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:00
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7unck6$fr8$[e-mail]>,
 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>>> No, the statement is wrong.  If "Fortran 90 functionality" is
>>>>>> promised, then one expects functionality equivalent to Fortran 90.
>
>>>>> Illogical. If one expects functionality equivalent to Fortran 90, then
>>>>> the compiler would have been called a Fortran 90 compiler, Mike.  It
>>>>> wasn't.  That alone should tell you something.  Why do you think IBM is
>>>>> calling their JDK 1.1.8 rather than 1.2?
>
>>>> Because it doesn't support the functionality of JDK 1.2,
>
>>> It does support some of it, Mike.
>
>> It supports *some* of it.  Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2.
>> It doesn't have JDK 1.2 functionality, though.  Only some of it.
>
>Earlier you said it does not, Mike.

Incorrect.  I disagreed with the statement that "JDK 1.1.8 implements
JDK 1.2 functionality."

>>>> which is the point.
>
>>> The point is that it's perfectly correct to state that JDK 1.1.8
>>> implements JDK 1.2 functionality, because it does, Mike.  Nobody
>>> should logically expect it to implement all of the 1.2 functionality,
>>> because otherwise IBM would have called it 1.2.  IBM did not.  There's
>>> a reason for that, and if you were capable of comprehending that
>>> reason, then you couldn't logically conclude that "implements 1.2
>>> functionality" means "all" rather than "some" of the functionality.
>
>> You're changing your argument.  You're now saying that the important
>> phrase isn't "implements JDK 1.2 functionality", the important phrase
>> is "JDK 1.1.8".
>
>That doesn't represent any change, Mike.  The first phrase is
>important because it tells you what functionality is being referred
>to,

Exactly.  JDK 1.2 functionality.

>and the second phrase is important because it ought to tell you
>that only some of the functionality is included, otherwise they
>wouldn't be using that older version number.

Not so.  The name of the product is irrelevent.  The functionality
provided by the product is relevent.

>> If you say "Product X implements JDK 1.2 functionality", would not
>> a reasonable person conclude that Product X actually does have
>> functionality equivalent to JDK 1.2?
>
>Not if X stands for JDK 1.1.8.

You're dodging the point because it proves you wrong.  The phrase
"implements JDK 1.2 functionality" leads people to conclude that
the functionality of JDK 1.2 is implemented.

>> JDK 1.1.8 doesn't support the functionality of JDK 1.2
>
>JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2 functionality, Mike.  I've listed that
>functionality, Mike.  All you could do is pontificate that those
>functions aren't really included.

No, Dave, I've proven that what you've listed is not included.

>>>>>>>> Which features are you referring to?
>
>>>>>>> The features from Java 1.2 that IBM chose to implement in Java 1.1.8,
>>>>>>> Mike.
>
>>>>>> Which features would those be?
>
>>>>> Java 2 security classes,
>
>>>> Wrong.  IBM did not implement Java 2 security classes in Java 1.1.8.
>
>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>>> Mike.
>
>> Can't find that article with deja.com, Dave.
>
>That's your problem, Mike.  Amazing how much you like to argue about
>Java for OS/2, but how little you like to follow the news about it.
>I'll give you a hint, Mike:  the article appeared in comp.os.os2.announce
>and was submitted by an IBMer several months ago.  Where have you been?

I don't read comp.os.os2.announce.  I do Java programming, and OS/2 is
far behind in that department.  c.o.o.announce would have nothing of
relevence to me.

>> Repost it if you want to refer to it.
>
>Here's the relevant excerpt:
>
>] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security
>] classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's
>] implementation of the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.
>
>> In any case, what some article on usenet refers to is irrelevent.
>
>On the contrary, it's quite relevant, as it represents IBM's word
>about an IBM product, as opposed to your word about an IBM product
>that you have no reason to use.

It represents IBM's announcement about a future IBM product.  My
comments reflect the actual contents of the IBM product in question.
I win.

>> The facts are relevent.  IBM did not implement Java 2 security
>> classes in JDK 1.1.8.
>
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>Mike.

Not so.  The message merely states IBM's intention to deliver
"Java 2 security classes" in JDK 1.1.8.  It does not say that JDK 1.1.8
contains those classes.  Indeed, it does not.

>>>> The extra security classes that they include in the Java 1.1.8 JDK are
>>>> not included in Java 1.2.
>
>>> IBM refers to them as Java 2 security classes, Mike.
>
>> Irrelevent.  IBM also refers to OS/2 as "the premiere platform for
>> Java development".
>
>Where did IBM make such a reference, Mike?

Irrelevent to the issue at hand.

>> What IBM claims does not override the facts.
>
>Do you even understand what IBM has claimed, Mike?

Yes, Dave, I do.  They did not claim that JDK 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2
functionality.  You've been claiming that.

>>>> In fact, they are not allowed to do what you claim; licensees are
>>>> barred from adding classes into the namespace of the the core JDK
>>>> packages.
>
>>> Then why does Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]
>>> indicate otherwise, Mike?
>
>> What the article indicates to you and what the article actually says
>> are vastly different things.
>
>In that case, what I actually claimed and what you think I claimed
>are vastly different things.  I never made any claim about classes
>being added into the namespace of the core JDK.  I merely claimed
>that 1.1.8 includes Java 2 security classes, and that's what the
>article says.  You're the one who twisted that around, Mike.

The article does not say that.  The article uses future tense.  The
article is, as you say "predicting the future".  The article's
prediction is incorrect.

>> The security classes that IBM *added* are in the com.ibm.* packages.
>
>Irrelevant, Mike.  Doesn't change the fact that IBM stated that Java 2
>security classes are included.

Quite relevent, Dave.  What IBM previously predicted about the future
does not override the reality of the present.

>> The security classes that are part of Java 2 are in the java.security.*
>> packages.  They are not the same classes.
>
>What's different about them, Mike, their location?

They're in different packages, thus they are different classes.  Basic
Java language rules, Dave.

>>>>> Remote Method Invocation over IIOP,
>
>>>> Wrong.  RMI over IIOP is not a Java 2 feature; it is a standard
>>>> extension.
>
>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates
>>> otherwise, Mike.
>
>> Sun's web site indicates the truth.
>
>Sun does not speak for IBM, Mike.

Irrelevent; Sun speaks for Sun, and Sun defines Java 2.  Your only
counterargument is that Sun doesn't speak for IBM.  So what?  IBM
cannot decree that something is a Java 2 feature, since they don't
own Java 2.  I win this point.

>>>> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.
>
>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>>> Mike.
>
>> Download the JDK from IBM's web site, Dave.  The classes aren't in it.
>
>Wouldn't be the first time you couldn't find something that is there.

I offer proof, and your only counterargument is an insult.  I win
this point as well.

>>>>> the COMM API,
>
>>>> Wrong.  The Communications API is also not a part of Java 2.
>
>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates otherwise,
>>> Mike.
>
>> Sun's web site indicates the truth.
>
>Sun does not speak for IBM, Mike.

Sun defines Java 2, and IBM does not.  Regardless of what IBM might
state, the Communications API is not part of Java 2.  Again, you have
no counterargument, so I win this point as well.

>>>> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK
>
>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>>> Mike.
>
>> Download the JDK from IBM's web site, Dave.  The classes aren't in it.
>
>Wouldn't be the first time you couldn't find something that is there.

Again, I offer proof, and your response is an insult.  I win this point,
too.

>>>>> and Swing, for example.
>
>>>> Swing was introduced before Java 2.
>
>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates otherwise,
>>> Mike.
>
>> Then it's wrong.  More likely, your interpretation is wrong.
>
>Actually, more likely is that you're ignoring a difference in Swing
>between the two versions.

From your excerpt, it's clear that your interpration is wrong.  Nowhere
in the text you've presented does IBM claim that Swing is a Java 2
feature.

>>>> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.
>
>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>>> Mike.
>
>> Download the JDK from IBM's web site, Dave.  The classes aren't in it.
>
>Wouldn't be the first time you couldn't find something that is there.

Again, not even an attempt at proof from your side.  I win this point
as well.

>>>> Sorry, you're 0 for 4.
>
>>> Incorrect, Mike.
>
>> I'm quite correct, Dave.  I included references to official Sun web
> sites, and quotes backing up my positions.
>
>I've quoted IBM backing up my position, Mike.

No, you haven't.  Your quote demonstrates that IBM intended JDK 1.1.8
to include "Java 2 security classes", and a number of other features
that are unrelated to Java 2.  You have presented nothing to back up
your position that IBM considers RMI/IIOP, the COMM API, and Swing
"Java 2 functionality."  You have presented nothing to back up your
position that JDK 1.1.8 actually does include "Java 2 security classes".

>> You had no response to those quotes.
>
>Demonstrate their relevance, Mike.

I already did, Dave.  They prove that the items you refer to as
"Java 2 functionalty" are not part of Java 2.  You should have read
them before deleting them.

>>> Did you bother to even read the evidence I pointed you to?
>
>> Couldn't find it with deja.com, Dave.
>
>That's your problem, Mike.  Amazing how much you like to argue about
>Java for OS/2, but how little you like to follow the news about it.

I'm obviously more up to date on it than you are.  I know what it
actually includes.  You know what IBM predicted it would include.
I have the actual JDK.  You have a newsgroup article from before
the JDK even shipped.  I win.

>>>> It's say "nice try", but that was pretty pathetic.
>
>>> Your so-called "logic" is pretty pathetic, Mike.
>
>> My logic is backed up by facts and reality.  Your claims are incorrect.
>
>How ironic, coming from someone making incorrect claims.

Yet you could not demonstrate how even a single claim is incorrect.
You could not show that IBM's JDK 1.1.8 includes the items you claim
it includes, and you could not show that Java 2 includes the features
you claim it does.

>>>>>> You are, once again, arguing from a position of arrogant ignorance.
>
>>>>> On the contrary, I am, once again, arguing from a position of knowledge
>>>>> and logic.
>
>>>> Then why are all of your answers wrong?
>
>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?
>
>> The basis of knowing the facts.  That's why I included excerpts that
>> proved my points.  And that's why you deleted those excerpts.
>
>Incorrect, Mike.

Quite correct.  You deleted the excerpts without comment.  Telling.

     - Mike

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            21-Oct-99 22:27:29
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:00
Subj: Giga says Win2k worth the money

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

Giga report: Benefits of Windows 2000 outweigh deployment costs

Companies will be able to recover the costs of deploying Windows 2000 within
approximately 6 to 12 month, report finds
Redmond, WAùNothing good comes for free, but with Microsoft« Windows« 2000
companies can get a lot for their investment.

 Research conducted by Giga Information Group, an independent IT research
advisory company based in Cambridge, Mass., concludes that the benefits of
migrating to Windows 2000 outweigh its costs. Organizations deploying Windows
2000 on new hardware will see economic returns resulting from significant
improvements in reliability, performance and stability, the study found, and
companies will be able to recover their initial costs within approximately 6
to
12 months.
Giga's conclusion: The benefits can make deploying Windows 2000 a win-win
solution for most companies.

"This report paints a realistic picture of the costs of deploying Windows
2000," said Keith White, director of public relations of the Business and
Enterprise Division at Microsoft. "While there will always be a cost in
deploying any new software, the increased performance, reliability and
scalability of the Windows 2000 platform outweigh those costs and give
companies compelling reasons to upgrade to Windows 2000. The report also
substantiates what we've been hearing from the hundreds of companies that have

already deployed Windows 2000."

Giga based its study on the total economic impact (TEI) of adopting a new
operating system. The approach determines the dollar costs of adopting the
products, including the cost of purchasing software, hardware and training
employees, and compares those costs to the impact of the new technology on
operations, such as management and productivity.

TEI gives companies an accurate picture of how purchasing new technology will
affect their bottom line.

The study found that upgrading to Windows 2000 Professional will cost
approximately $970 to $1,640 per desktop, and upgrading to Windows 2000 Server

will cost about $107 per client in a network of 5,000 users. For an enterprise

with 5,000 users, the total expected cost of upgrading to Windows 2000
Professional and Server would cost approximately $1,077 to $1,747 per user
even
if an organization replaces all of its desktop hardware.

Those costs will be offset by the savings related to the new operating system
within about 6 to 12 months, according to Giga's research. Savings could come
from increased productivity, fewer administrators needed to manage a network
and reduced training time.

 On the client side, the report found, companies will get a solid desktop
platform and a standardized interface that is less expensive to support. In
addition, they should not need to upgrade desktop hardware for at least two
years. The report also found that on the server side, companies will get
improved performance, the option to consolidate their servers and improved
ability to handle data intensive applications such as e-commerce, Web hosting
and constructing corporate intranets.

The report concludes that these benefits are a compelling reason for companies

to move to Windows 2000.

The report's findings jibe with the experiences of the more than 100 business
customers that have already deployed beta versions of Windows 2000. These
early
adopters say the operating system is reliable, robust and easy to use. Some
are
already using the Active DirectoryÖ services and remote management features in

Windows 2000 to reduce costs.

There are several other ways Windows 2000 can benefit companies.

Microsoft designed Windows 2000 from the ground up to be its most reliable and

manageable operating system platform to date.

Windows 2000 Professional, created for businesses of all sizes, is designed to

be the easiest-to-use desktop operating system yet, and includes significant
enhancements for mobile users. It's designed to provide industrial-strength
reliability and help companies further lower their total cost of ownership
with
improved manageability.

Windows 2000 Server is designed to be the ideal solution for small to medium-
sized enterprise application deployments, Web servers, workgroups and branch
offices. Windows 2000 Advanced Server, the server operating system for
business-critical applications, extends these capabilities and is designed for

database-intensive work and integrates clustering and load-balancing support
to
improve system and application availability.

And that gives any company a way to benefit from Windows 2000.



Well, for all you people(like Joseph) who side with Giga earlier, let's see
how
you like them apples, ya hurtins.


--
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             21-Oct-99 22:14:04
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:01
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: Stanley Sidlov <[e-mail]>


"[e-mail]" wrote:

>                                                         Ha-ha!  Theta wins
by
>                                                             default, and
they
>                                                               don't even
have
>                                                                 any
software.

Julien has the MPU401 driver he just released (not to mention the plug-in for
netscape). You have the Paradise.sys one and the others I mentioned...

When are you going to put some drag-n-drop in your MidiDB?



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Warpstock Board of Directors [Thanks Esther, this
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 02:34:06
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> writes:

: On <OfzP3.182$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 07:27 AM,
:    "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:

: > Um, excuse me!  This isn't a bug in the OS.  This is a problem with the
: > USR ..inf files for the modems.  I have fought with this too and the
: > problem is the .inf file not correctly identifying itself as the correct
: > driver for the device.  Since the device and drivers were created after
: > Win95, it is up to the modem driver to be written correctly to work with
: > Windows.

: Again you post pure bullshit FUD. The problem exists in Win98 which is
: later than the USR product and drivers.

Yet, he seems to be able to provide perfectly sane explainations, while
you just accuse him of lying and spreading FUD.

BTW, he's correct.  Bob, how about knowing what the hell you're talking
about before spouting off, eh?  Think you could manage that just once?
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| =  :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
|     |  you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._|                    -- Lieutenant Commander Data

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Anamorphic 3-D Graphics Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      21-Oct-99 19:36:03
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 14:09:16, Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>
>wrote:
>
<snipped>
>>
>> How can such strong convictions be based on hearsay.
>>
>What hearsay? Anyone with two open eyes can see the business tactics
>Microsoft will stoop to. And I don't think it's fair to refer to the
>proceedings of the DoJ trial as "hearsay".
>

Anyone else still unsure what hearsay means...




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary Organization (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                21-Oct-99 22:33:26
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:01
Subj: Re: Giga says Win2k worth the money

From: "Mike Ruskai" <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:27:59 -0400, David H. McCoy wrote:

>Giga report: Benefits of Windows 2000 outweigh deployment costs
>
>Companies will be able to recover the costs of deploying Windows 2000 within
>approximately 6 to 12 month, report finds
>Redmond, WA▀Nothing good comes for free, but with Microsoft⌐ Windows⌐ 2000
>companies can get a lot for their investment.
>
> Research conducted by Giga Information Group, an independent IT research
>advisory company based in Cambridge, Mass., concludes that the benefits of
>migrating to Windows 2000 outweigh its costs. Organizations deploying Windows

>2000 on new hardware will see economic returns resulting from significant
>improvements in reliability, performance and stability, the study found, and
>companies will be able to recover their initial costs within approximately 6
to
>12 months.
>Giga's conclusion: The benefits can make deploying Windows 2000 a win-win
>solution for most companies.

That's a lose-lose statement, for your interests.

First, Win2K isn't even GA yet.  Saying that it'll be reliable and stable
is hardly appropriate.

Second, if the reliability and stability will be so good, what's that say
about NT currently?

If NT currently is reliable and stable, as you love to claim, why would
someone get more reliability and stability with Win2K?

[snip]
>Those costs will be offset by the savings related to the new operating system

>within about 6 to 12 months, according to Giga's research. Savings could come

>from increased productivity, fewer administrators needed to manage a network
>and reduced training time.

So here either the above is bullshit, or NT is an unproductive OS, which
requires a lot of administration and training.

> On the client side, the report found, companies will get a solid desktop
>The report's findings jibe with the experiences of the more than 100 business

>customers that have already deployed beta versions of Windows 2000. These
early
>adopters say the operating system is reliable, robust and easy to use. Some
are
>already using the Active Directory■ services and remote management features
in
>Windows 2000 to reduce costs.

Yeah, there's a reliable mindset to go by:  company IT departments willing
to deploy a BETA product.

[snip]

Independent, my ass.  That was practically a Microsoft press release.

The fact that it's inherently inconsistent with what MS has been saying
about NT all these years doesn't seem to bother people like you, who now
simply follow MS's dangling carrot.



 - Mike

Remove 'spambegone' to send e-mail.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TLF (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 02:36:00
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> writes:

: On <[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 03:56 PM,
:    Gerben Bergman <[e-mail]> said:

: > | the fact that the maker of said toy operating system now thinks himself
in a
: > | position where he owns the minds of the computer idiots of the world (so
: > | there isn't much to own, but still...);

: > Yes, Windows users are "idiots".

: The only truthful thing you have posted here!

I guess some people are just pathetically ignorant, and hopelessly
clueless.  Bob, get bent.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| =  :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
|     |  you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._|                    -- Lieutenant Commander Data

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Anamorphic 3-D Graphics Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                      21-Oct-99 19:39:06
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Jerry McBride wrote in message <[e-mail]>...
>In article <7uo23i$eiu$[e-mail]>,
>"Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>PMFJI
>>
>>Bob Germer wrote in message <380f2610$3$obot$[e-mail]>...
>>>On <JWDP3.13162$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 12:46
PM,
>>>   "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> said:
>>>
<trimmed>
>>>
>>
>>Bob you are the one that is full of shit.  The thousands of posts about
the
>>creeping registry corruption are as full of shit as you.  The causes are
>>exactly as Drestin said.  People futzing with their systems.
>>
>
>Futzing? I can show you a WHOLE room of computers that will corrupt the
>registry by just installing a cdrom...
>

Sure you can, and I'd walk into that room and show you how to do it
properly.

>If you call THAT futzing... then Windows must truly suck... better than
Linda
>Lovelace too!
>
<trimmed>
>>
>>Are you saying you didn't adminstrate them from a central location, didn't
>>have a test environment, didn't have corporate standards.  Jeeeze no
wonder
>>you didn't have any stability.  Look for a new line of work.
>>
>
>You can't do that with windows... Well... it's a twist. But if your winnt
server
>is running from a remote location... then HOW in the heel do you expect to
>reboot it from a central location?
>

It's fairly easily, why don't you do a search on the MS knowledge base and
see.
<trimmed>
>>>
>>
>>Bull shit,  You were simply incapable of detecting the real problem.
>>
>
>A lot of coporate fat clients are "just run" and never upgraded by the
user.
>Fact is, most of your typical office workers wouldn't even know what to do
>once they operate out of their... application... My boss is a GREAT example
of
>this. He's always thumping his chest about win98 and how superior it is to
>everything else... but once he get's out of "his application expertise"
he's
>totally lost and has no idea what he's doing... While he spends hours and
>dollars getting help from MS tech support... I'm happy as hell (productive
too)
>running OS2 on my laptop. In fact, until I told him about the difference,
he
>actually thought OS2 was windows... :')
>

Yah, sure.

>>>>Shutdowns without shutting down,
>>>
>>>Something Windows doesn't handle very well at all. A serious flaw in the
>>>program. And one which must frequently be resorted to when Win 9x chooses
>>>to lock up the keyboard and mouse or refuses to shut down.
>>>
>>
>>And OS/2 does? HA HA HA HA......
>>
>
>Any OS is vulnerable to problems if it's "dropped" during disk IO, but
windows
>is probably the only one that has a propensity for clobbering files... just
>for the fun of it... :')
>
>>>apps installed and their directories deleted instead of uninstalled.
>>>
>>>Something that should be readily fixable which it is not. This is a
>>>serious problem with Win9x.
>>>
>>
>>And it is fixable for someone with the wherewithal to learn the tools they
>>use.
>>
>
>It's a cinch that MicroSoft doesn't use them!
>
>>>Joes> favorite Win 3.11 screen saver (Johnny castaway was so popular at
>>>one > site that we had to institute a "You got Johnny, you got no job" >
>>>policy). The OS gets used and abused.
>>>
>>>How come, then, the same users doing the same things they have always
been
>>>doing don't have problems once Windows is replaced by a good operating
>>>system? Tell me that you idiot.
>>>
>>
>>OS/2 wont solve these problems any better, and in fact will exacerbate the
>>situation since the methods of monitoring, robust network clients and
>>centralized administration do not exist.
>>
>
>You've never seen Wseb?
>
>>>>And these computer "idiots" screw
>>>> it up and it starts to do what any OS messed with does, it crashes. And
>>>> your users aren't going to admit it happened after they installed print
>>>> shop master gold 6.5 from '97, tried it again when it complained about
>>>> some driver conflict error thing-a-ma-bob, then finally installed print
>>>> master '98 in the same directory (cause the names sounded alike so they
>>>> are probably the same program right?) and then when it was really
>>>> screwed up tried to uninstall the first one first and then when trying
>>>> to uninstall the second one and it wouldn't even run the uninstall so
>>>> they just deleted the directory and THEN called you to say: "Windows is
>>>> crashing in, ummmmm, WORD, yeah, WORD a lot" - you come over and say:
>>>> Gee, the OS sucks, my perfect users are suffering, I'll install
>>>> something else.
>>>
>>>A stable, properly designed operating system wouldn't be crashed by such
>>>things. That Windows is while others are not (or with several magnitudes
>>>fewer occurances) is proof that Windows is an abortion and fatally flawed
>>>operating system.
>>>
>>
>>You left out properly implemented.  If you don't set it up correctly, and
>>your own posts have shown that you weren't capable of doing so, any OS can
>>become a disaster but that's not the OS's fault that's yours.
>
>For what? Installing an OS and having it go down on a regular basis is THE
>USERS' FAULT? Wow! You've been reading too much of MicroSofts propaganda...
>It's NEVER their fault, it's bad install or bad hardware or bad third party
>programming practices...
>
>>>> So, you go and install OS/2 or even worse, Linux on their desktop. What
>>>> happens. Gee, they run the one or two authorized apps cause they are
>>>> forced to learn them. The OS itself is so alien and hard to use and
>>>> unintuitive and intimidating. They have nothing to install on it
>>>> themselves cause no one they know uses it or has any cute
>>>> frog-in-the-blender games to send them. All their kids software at home
>>>> won't install as soon as it's put in the CD-ROM anymore and even most
>>>> java apps on the web fail under the slowest netscape browser they could
>>>> sneak in. Basically they stop abusing/using the OS and JUST run their
>>>> two apps (or app suites).
>>>
>>>Even if that were true which of course it is not, this is what employers
>>>want their people to be doing. They don't want them playing games, doing
>>>kids homework, etc. In fact, more than 40% of the workstations are set up
>>>without a floppy drive and without a CD (or with same disabled) just to
>>>prevent this sort of misuse of an employer's property.
>>>
>>
>>You are now asserting you did this with the Win9x?
>
>If you don't there's always the chance that someone knows HOW to install
said
>games and "stuff". Removing floppies and cdroms is pretty common...
>
>>> And you think, gee, we have no more "OS
>>>> failures" - not realizing, it's cause they aren't doing anything but
>>>> running two apps instead of previously actually playing with the OS,
>>>> changing color depth, desktop resolution, running active desktop with
>>>> push channels, setting themes and generally mucking about in the OS
>>>> configuration. Control panel is there and it's easy to play with, let's
>>>> run with it!
>>>
>>>Again, a fatal flaw in Window's design. Control panel should be
>>>unavailable to users.
>>>
>>It can be if you use the policies as stated by drestin.
>>
>
>It can't be. Windows was and is designed to be a single user OS...
everything
>else is just layers and layers of patches... Now to be sold as Win2K...
>
>What a croc...
>
>
>--
>
>***************************************************************************
****
>*            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...
*
>*       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.151 for your next java project at:
*
>*
*
>*                      GET IT NOW! WHILE IT'S STILL FREE!
*
>*
*
>*                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx
*
>***************************************************************************
****
>
>/----------------------------------------\
>| From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
>|         [e-mail]             |
>\----------------------------------------/
>
>--
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary Organization (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               21-Oct-99 20:50:23
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:01
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

Can you find more ways to make me laugh?

On my own website, I've thought of putting up articles from tv magazine
publications.  But I had to go to the companies who owned the articles and
ask permission.

The DOJ has nothing to do with this sort of thing.  Purportedly, they're
around to ensure justice is being served (which, thanks to congress and any
politician who bribes them on a daily basis, means our country lacks a whole
lotta justice.)  It's up to the company who owns the product to take action
against other companies or individuals if they feel they've been violated
and it's up to consumers to talk to the companies if they want to reprint
information, make copies, whatever.  The DOJ is irrelevent.

Oh, this SPA organization - aren't they related to Microsoft or at least
some key Microsoft personnel?  :-)

Microsoft, oops the SPA, merely wants justice to fly off their ass.

Sadly, I don't feel much for the situation.  Bribery and other unethical
forms of conduct happen between companies and government entitites/elected
officials anyway.  Having been used to being dipped in butter, licking a
dollop of margarine makes no difference.  Both clog the arteries of fair
play.

Now go away.  I may defend Microsoft once in a while, but this ain't one of
those times!

Eric Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
>
>
> SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget
> EBNet Newswire
>
>
> Boston, MA.  October 20, 1999.  The Software Pirates of America (SPA)
> today announced a new lobbying campaign aimed at reducing the year 2000
> budgets for the Department of Justice and the U.S. Copyright Office.
>
>    "We believe that the Justice Department has handled enforcement of the
> copyright laws in an inappropriate manner", said SPA President R. Edward
> Baird, "and therefore it is appropriate for Congress to reduce the
> agency's funding."  Baird cited industry statistics showing that the
> activities of his organization have lowered costs to consumers and
> businesses around the world by hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
> "Many people who are prosecuted for violating copyright laws are
> actually protected under the 'fair use' clause", claimed Baird.  "These
> inappropriate and wayward prosecutions must be stopped."
>
>    Industry analysts applauded the move.  Lem Ing of the Gardener Group
> noted that the move shows an increasing trend in the technology industry
> of groups being willing to challenge government waste.  "As usual,
> credit for this innovation should go to Microsoft," said Ing, "given the
> recent disclosure that Microsoft is lobbying against blatant waste in
> the DOJ's antitrust division.  And given that a prominent Republican has
> labeled the antitrust division as one of the most efficient units in the
> government, Microsoft's action clearly shows that even relatively
> efficient government agencies are still very wasteful.  We thus expect a
> flood of actions similar to the action disclosed today by the SPA, all
> aimed at at reducing overactive law enforcement activities."
>
>    Bo Guss, an analysts with Datajest, concurred with Baird's analysis,
> noting that "government prosecutions in this area clearly result in
> higher costs to large numbers of consumers and corporations."
>
>    Microsoft spokesman Tom Pilla blasted the group's efforts as
> constituting a "blatant disregard for the law", but Baird insists that
> his group's actions are ethical.  "Like Microsoft, we are simply
> exercising our rights to speak freely and to petition the government for
> a redress of grievances," he said.
>
>    There have also been reports that, due to the number of privately filed
> copyright suits, the SPA is considering lobbying for cuts in court
> funding for district courts that have not shown sympathy to SPA members.
> SPA officials refused to comment on these reports.
>
>
>
> For more breaking news from EBNet Newswire, please visit our web site:
> http://128.253.200.125/news/
>
> --
> EBNet Newswire, Inc.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        22-Oct-99 03:14:29
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380eefa5$3$obot$[e-mail]...
| On <2OyP3.180$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 06:55 AM,
|    "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:
|
|
| > I tend to agree with Hobbyist here.  You seem to have an extremely
| > biased and closed minded opinion.  In the past 5 years I have worked for
| > 4 different companies;
|
| I have no doubt you worked for 4 companies in 5 years. It proves you don't
| know a damn thing. No one with a work record like that is taken seriously
| nor should they be.

Maybe the fact that I've trippled my annual salary in the past 5 years will
give you more ammo to call me a moron.  Didn't you know that the more you
get paid, the less you are worth?  That kind of backward thinking seems to
be your trademark.

Gerben was right.  You're a waste of time.

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        22-Oct-99 03:16:13
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380f22c1$2$obot$[e-mail]...
| On <0wDP3.13160$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 12:18 PM,
|    "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> said:
|
[snip]
|
| If it were possible to fix the creeping registry corruption in Win 9x, I
| would. However it is not. It is a fatal flaw in the program. Why do you
| suppose that even MICROSOFT says not to deploy Win9x in a mission critical
| envirnment? In most instances, no software has been added to the system.
| Typically, the damn thing runs for about 3 or 4 weeks without problems.
| Then random errors start to occur and continue to get worse to the point
| where rebooting 3 or more times in an 8 hour day is required.
|
| This just doesn't happen very often with ?nix, OS/2, etc.

Poppycock!  "What did you do just before it broke all by itself?"  Sound
familiar?

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        22-Oct-99 03:19:14
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380eef12$2$obot$[e-mail]...
| On <JizP3.183$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 07:30 AM,
|    "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:
|
| > I hate to follow up my own post, but I must replace "Linux" with "OS/2".
| > I just realized your OS of preference.  I do not believe, however, that
| > this in any way invalidates any of my points.
|
| You have yet to make a valid point in any of your meaningless drivel.

But you, OTOH, have stated world-saving points and we are all going to sleep
better tonight?

The fact is that it's impossible to say anything meaningful when replying to
your backward frame of mind.

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        22-Oct-99 03:20:26
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Stephen S. Edwards II <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:7uoif5$g0$[e-mail]...
| Bob Germer <[e-mail]> writes:
|
[snip]
|
| : Again you post pure bullshit FUD. The problem exists in Win98 which is
| : later than the USR product and drivers.
|
| Yet, he seems to be able to provide perfectly sane explainations, while
| you just accuse him of lying and spreading FUD.
|
| BTW, he's correct.  Bob, how about knowing what the hell you're talking
| about before spouting off, eh?  Think you could manage that just once?

I would have replied to him myself, but I couldn't have said it any better.
Thanks, Stephen.

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 16:29:10
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 02:30:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]>

"Bob Germer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380f21ea$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <OfzP3.182$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 07:27 AM,
>    "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > Um, excuse me!  This isn't a bug in the OS.  This is a problem with the
> > USR ..inf files for the modems.  I have fought with this too and the
> > problem is the .inf file not correctly identifying itself as the correct
> > driver for the device.  Since the device and drivers were created after
> > Win95, it is up to the modem driver to be written correctly to work with
> > Windows.
>
> Again you post pure bullshit FUD. The problem exists in Win98 which is
> later than the USR product and drivers.
>
So the problem still exists in the INF file.  It means they haven't changed
their drivers.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Customer of Telecom Internet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           22-Oct-99 00:13:02
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 06:39 PM,
   [e-mail] (Jerry McBride) said:

> >WordPerfect runs perfectly on Win9x too, or did that little snippet get
past
> >your built in anti MS bias.
> >

More lies and FUD. WP itself does. However, Bitstream Fontware does not.
Many of those clients have from several dozen to well over 80,000
gigabytes of documents formatted with fonts from Bitstream which must be
downloaded to the printer on an as-needed basis. DOS does it very well.
WinOS2 does it very well. Win 3.11 does it fairly well. Win 9x does not.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           22-Oct-99 00:19:19
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7uoif5$g0$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 02:34 AM,
   "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]> said:

> BTW, he's correct.  Bob, how about knowing what the hell you're talking
> about before spouting off, eh?  Think you could manage that just once?

I issued the loudmouth a challenge he totally ignored. I am willing to
wager serious money that I do know what I am talking about and that he is
an absolute liar probably on Chief Thief Bill Gates' payroll. You are
about to join him in the killfile.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           22-Oct-99 00:23:27
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7unobg$i4u$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 08:08 AM,
   "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]> said:


> Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:380e9f7a$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> > On <7ulnvi$9kq58$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 01:48 PM,
> >    "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]> said:
> >
> > > > In point of fact, most Windows 9x users are NOT on a network.
> Therefore,
> > > > MS has introduced needless overhead, aka a serious bug, to the
> software.
> > > > People on networks either have knowledge or technical support in
> house.
> > > > Individual users lack both.
> >
> > > That my friend is not a bug.  It is working as designed - not a bug.
> >
> > First of all, you are not my friend, never can be since you are a liar,
> > and have no right to assume such familiarity. Secondly, only a MicroSoft
> > Lemming would make such an outrageous statement.
> >
> Alright, let me rephrase.

> That is not a bug *asshole*.  It is working as designed - not a bug.


> How about telling me why something that works as it is designed is a bug
> instead of calling me a liar and a lemming.  From what I've read of your
> posts, reason doesn't enter into it, so I don't hold out much hope.

Since you are such a stupid, ignorant, retarded moron, I will tell you. A
so called "operating system" designed as the OS for the masses should not
be so written that only one trained in networking and technical support
can come close to making it stable. It would not be so overbloated with
complex network support. That is a failure not a feature. Failures in the
computer world are bugs, not features.

Now, go get Mommy to explain it to you.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           22-Oct-99 00:26:13
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7uolop$9mdgt$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 04:29 PM,
   "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]> said:


> > > Um, excuse me!  This isn't a bug in the OS.  This is a problem with the
> > > USR ..inf files for the modems.  I have fought with this too and the
> > > problem is the .inf file not correctly identifying itself as the correct
> > > driver for the device.  Since the device and drivers were created after
> > > Win95, it is up to the modem driver to be written correctly to work with
> > > Windows.
> >
> > Again you post pure bullshit FUD. The problem exists in Win98 which is
> > later than the USR product and drivers.
> >
> So the problem still exists in the INF file.  It means they haven't
> changed their drivers.

Then you admit it is yet another bug since the drivers were installed by
Windows, not from USR diskette.



--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           22-Oct-99 00:27:20
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 11:50 AM,
   "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> said:

> > Those workstations, as stated previously, are spread out over many
> > clients. They are not in one place. But you knew that and deliberately
> > ignored it so as to try to justify the crap put out by the company which
> > obviously pays you, - namely MicroSoft.

> I knew that? How did I know that? Am I psychic? I do not work for nor am
> paid by MS in any way shape or form. I have no idea who you are, YOU are
> the one spouting 10,000 seat claims.

Because is was clearly stated in my original message which you quoted. I
assumed you had a reading level somewhere between kindergarten and first
grade. I was wrong. You must have failed nursery school.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         22-Oct-99 04:28:07
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:02
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>>   --Roberto Alsina

> Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual would
> do?

Normal, well adjusted, relaxed individuals use quotations frequently,
Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         22-Oct-99 04:27:01
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:02
Subj: Re: [tholen] Dave Tholen and song lyrics

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>>> Richard R. Klemmer writes:

>>>>>>> Marty wrote:

>>>>>>>> I started singing
>>>>>>>> Bye, bye Mr. Dave Tholen guy.
>>>>>>>> Spent a while out of my killfile
>>>>>>>> till my humor ran dry.
>>>>>>>> And good old Dave
>>>>>>>> my claims he did deny,
>>>>>>>> saying this is where the argument dies
>>>>>>>> this is where the argument dies....

>>>>>>> Marty, please stop.  I'm laughing so hard my eyes are watering. :-)

>>>>>> Control yourself, Richard.

>>>>> What makes you think he's not controlled, Dave?

>>>> What he wrote, Marty.

>>> Sorry, but if that doesn't work as evidence for me, it can't work as
>>> evidence for you.

>> Incorrect.  It does work as evidence for me.

> Well thank you for finally admitting your double standard.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I didn't admit to
any double standard.  I simply contradicted your claim.

> It's the first step toward getting better.

You're erroneously presupposing some admission of a double standard
on my part, Marty.

> Of course, you'll now proceed to point out that your evidence is
> backed by solid fact while mine is backed by lies and conjecture,

I've not done that, Marty.

> after pointing out, of course, that I've erroneously presupposed
> that you need to get better

With good reason.

> or that anything was wrong.

Something was wrong with your conclusion.

> Well, save it for someone who cares.

You obviously care, given that you're continuing to respond.

>>> How ironic that you speak of inconsistency.

>> What's allegedly ironic about it, Marty?

> See above.

The above doesn't contain any explanation for what is allegedly
ironic about it, Marty.

>>>>>>> Wierd Al has nothing over you.

>>>>>> On the contrary, he has plenty over Marty.

>>>>> Quite a bit of money, and he's far more prolific.

>>>> Glad you agree that he has plenty over you.

>>> As he also has plenty over you, but you'd never admit that.

>> Irrelevant, as no comparison was being made between me and Al.

> "As he also has plenty over you, but you'd never admit that."

"Irrelevant, as no comparison was being made between me and Al."

> How predictable.

How illogical.

> You are more than willing to point out the inferiorities of others,
> but when it comes to admitting a simple, obvious fact of your own
> inferiority, you will write it off as irrelevant.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?  Inferiority
wasn't even being discussed.  I wasn't even being discussed.  What
was being discussed is what Weird Al has over you.

> How arrogant.

How illogical.

> But don't worry, you're the best Dave Tholen you can be.

Are you suggesting that I cannot improve my skills at anything,
Marty?

>>>>>>> Thanks for the laugh.

>>>>>> And the inconsistency.

>>>>> So you appreciate inconsistency Dave?

>>>> I indicated no appreciation, Marty.  I simply noted the existence of
>>>> your inconsistency.

>>> Thanks for noting the existence of my inconsistency.

>> Your welcome.

> What about my welcome?

Where is it?

>>> And the appreciation.

>> Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?

> Erroneously presupposing that I ever have had reading comprehension
> problems

Incorrect, given that I've identified errors with your reading
comprehension previously.

> and further supposing that they persist even until now.

See above for yet another error involving your reading comprehension,
which demonstrates that it persists.

>> I indicated no appreciation;

> Which is why you undoubtedly have so many friends.

On what basis do you claim to know the number of my friends, Marty?

>> I simply noted the existence of your inconsistency.

> While neatly overlooking your own.

What alleged inconsistency of mine, Marty?

>>>>> Well then, you're quite welcome.

>>>> For what, Marty?

>>> See below.

>> Below doesn't indicate why you said that, Marty.

> Incorrect.

Feel free to indicate where you provided your explanation, Marty.

>>>>> It's an honor to know that my inconsistency is appreciated by the master
>>>>> of inconsistency himself.

>>>> I indicated no appreciation, Marty.  I simply noted the existence of
>>>> your inconsistency.

>>> Balderdash Dave.

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> See above.

The above doesn't provide the basis for your balderdash, Marty.

>>> Your statement is gramatically impeccable.

>> Irrelevant, Marty, as the issue was not grammatical correctness.

>>> And full of shit.

>> Prove it, if you think you can, Marty.  Why did you write above:

> I see you've failed to comprehend how I was applying your own idiocy
> back at you.

What alleged idiocy of mine, Marty?

> It figures.

It figures that you would make yet another unsubstantiated claim.

> Let me spell it out for you:
>
> >>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>
> >>> And the inconsistency.
>
> This equals:  Thanks for the laugh and the inconsistency

I didn't write that, Marty.

> Which equals: Thanks for the laugh and thanks for the inconsistency.

I didn't write that either, Marty.

> That's the way English works.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> When you use conjunctions like "and", it links to the previous phrase.

I indicated no concurrence with the laugh, Marty, thus your linkages are
inappropriate.

>>>>>>> And I'd like to point out to everyone that Marty's song lyrics weren't
>>>>>>> overly insulting to Dave Tholen, either.

>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they were.  I simply noted how
>>>>>> that Marty's killfile isn't working as intended.

>>>>> Which is exactly what any relaxed, well adjusted individual would have
>>>>> felt the need to do.

>>>> Odd that you recently claimed that I'm not relaxed.  Do make up you
>>>> mind, Marty.

>>> Obviously your sarcasm circuits are malfunctioning again.

>> Illogical, given that no "circuits" are involved, Marty.

> from tholenlogic.c line 412:

Typical invective.  Still playing your own "infantile game", eh Marty?

>>> Perhaps if you were more relaxed, you would have picked up on it.

>> More relaxed than what, Marty?

> More relaxed than you are now and were at the time of the previous
> posting.

On what basis do you claim to know how relaxed I am now, Marty?

>>>>>>> As for the rest of his posts... :-)

>>>>>> What about them?

>>>>> See above.

>>> note: no response

>> Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?

> See above.

See below for the evidence of your reading comprehension problems, Marty.

>> My response appears immediately below.  Count the levels of indentation.

> It was irrelevent to my statement as indicated by your divergent, "I'd
> rather see your previous post..."

Whether you consider it irrelevant or not, it's still a response, Marty.

>>>> I'd rather see your previous post, in which you wrote:

>>> Typical evasion.

>> Incorrect.

> Incorrect.  How is a complete changing of the topic to what you'd
> "rather" discuss not a tactic of evasion?

You're erroneously presupposing that I was changing the topic completely,
Marty.

> I'd rather discuss what is happening with OS/2,

Feel free to do so, Marty, but you seem too intent on continuing with your
own "infantile game".

> but you are obviously incapable of such a discussion.

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>>>> M] [Note:  no further response on my part is forthcoming on this matter]
>>>>
>>>> and to which I responded:
>>>>
>>>> DT] Famous last words.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, my expectation was fulfilled, because here you are, posting
>>>> another response on this matter.

>>> Have I responded to that branch of the thread?

>> Ah, I see you're now resorting to a semantic argument over "this matter"
>> being different from "that branch".

> Actually, *your* argument would be that they would be different.

Incorrect, Marty.  If they would be different, then I would not have noted
that you continued your discussion of this matter, which indicates that
you're discussing the same matter, not a different matter.

> Do try to keep your position straight in your own mind if not in your
> postings.

I have, Marty.

>>> If I have, please show me where because I'd like to read what my next
>>> song would be.

>> Illogical, given that postings do not need to include a song to be
>> considered a "further response".

> Well, since I would have written it, it is likely that it would contain
> a song,

Incorrect; note the absence of a new song in the posting of yours to
which I'm responding.  Note the absence of new songs in most of your
postings.

> however, since we both know it doesn't exist, you can drop your
> irrelevant point.

My point is quite relevant to what you wrote, Marty.

>>> Speaking of fulfilling expectations, you're getting quite boring to
>>> deal with.

>> Obviously not, given your recent rash of responses that demonstrate the
>> failure of your alleged killfile.

> You obviously have no concept of how message filters work in Netscape.

Incorrect.

> It is illogical to conclude that responses to your postings are
> indicative of your not being boring.

Also incorrect.

>>> Try to mix it up a bit so you're not so predictable.

>> You haven't been able to predict my responses, Marty.

> Incorrect.

Feel free to demonstrate where you've been able to predict my responses,
Marty.

>> I predicted that you would continue to respond, however, when I wrote
"Famous
>> last words".

> Prove it, if you think you can.

I just did, Marty.

>> I suggest you comtemplate your own predictability.

> I defer to the "viewing audience" for a judgement on who is more
> predictable with a high degree of confidence.

You're unlikely to gain a statistically significant sample size, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         22-Oct-99 04:35:17
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>>>>>>> Curtis Bass wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Ahh, the wonders of the Ambiguities of English . . .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's one problem with debate -- one has to choose words
>>>>>>>>>> very carefully.  To say that "X implements Y functionality"
>>>>>>>>>> really doesn't mean much, unless it's qualified. Does X
>>>>>>>>>> implement *all* of Y's funtionality, or only *some* of it?
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, the original quote can be correctly
>>>>>>>>>> interpreted both ways, and arguing that one interpretation
>>>>>>>>>> is "more correct" than the other is just as meaningless as
>>>>>>>>>> the original quote itself.

>>>>>>>>> This is essentially a correct analysis.

>>>>>>>> Incorrect.

>>>>>>> No, it is correct.

>>>>>> Balderdash, Lucien.

>>>>> Nope, it is correct.

>>>> Balderdash, Lucien.

>>>>>> I explained why it is incorrect.

>>>>> And your explanation is wrong.

>>>> I see you're pontificating once again.

>>> On the contrary, I'm merely pointing out that your explanation is
>>> wrong.

>> You can't do that by pontificating, Lucien.

> Again the alleged pontification.

It's not alleged at all, Lucien.  The lack of any supporting
explanation demonstrates that you're only pontificating.

> I'm merely countering your illogical explanation.

What allegedly illogical explanation, Lucien?

>>>> Where's your explanation?

>>> It's in the "costly mistakes" thread.

>> That thread is irrelevant here,

> On the contrary, that thread is quite relevant.

More pontification.

>> given that there is no word analogous
>> to "prevent" in the present situation.

> Wrong. There is a direct analogy.

Feel free to identify the allegedly analogous word, Lucien.  I've
asked you before, but you've yet to point it out.

> The evidence is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
time of that thread.

If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
a game, there should be no doubt now.

>> Of course, I've told you that before.

> And you've thereby unwittingly repeated your mistake.

What alleged mistake, Lucien?

>>> Find it there, if you think you can.

>> I already know I can't,

> Translation: David can't find it there, because he cannot understand
> the substance of the thread.

Yet another incorrect translation.

>> because it isn't there.

> On the contrary, the evidence is there, in full detail.

Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

>>>> Incorrect, given that there is no word analogous to "prevent" in
>>>> "implements Java 1.2 functionality".

>>> Wrong.

>> More pontification.

> Again the alleged pontification.

It's not alleged at all, Lucien.  The lack of any supporting
explanation demonstrates that you're only pontificating.

> I'm merely countering your incorrect statement.

What allegedly incorrect statement, Lucien?

>>>> You have yet to succeed, Lucien.

>>> On the contrary, I did succeed in a manner that was very expensive
>>> for you.

>> A rather blatant lie.

> A rather blatant statement of the truth:

Incorrect.

> that you were handed an unexpected and punishing defeat in a public
> forum in front of your peers.

What alleged "unexpected and punishing defeat", Lucien?  How ironic,
coming from someone dealt a punishing defeat.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         22-Oct-99 04:47:18
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>> I said it was unnecessary because my memories of it are
>>>> still quite clear.

>>> It is necessary; your memories of the thread are muddled.

>> Incorrect, Lucien.

> No, it is correct.

Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

>> Feel free to identify any incorrect memory of the
>> thread, if you think you can.

> You unwittingly used my "costly mistakes" reasoning in your argument
> about the JDK statements.

On the contrary, I didn't use any of your reasoning at all.  For
example, I never once mentioned X bar syntax when I described the
illogic of assuming the statement meant "all" functionality.

> Clearly, you've forgotten what your argument was

Incorrect.  My argument was based on the definition of the word
"prevent", and I've clearly not forgotten that.

> (and never understood mine).

On the contrary, I understood what was (and still is) wrong with
your argument, Lucien.

> Evidence in full can be found in the "costly mistakes" thread.

Evidence for your failure to comprehend the definition of "prevent"
can indeed be found in that thread.

>> Failure to do so will reinforce my
>> accusation that you're simply pontificating.

> See above.

The above does not contain any evidence for any incorrect memory on my
part, Lucien.

>>> Your argument was unwittingly illogical

>> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

> The proof is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

Incorrect, given that there is nothing illogical about noting the
definition of the word "prevent".

>>> and you lost the argument,

>> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

> The proof is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

Impossible, given that I didn't lose that argument.

>>> as was plain to all involved.

>> Who was involved, Lucien?  I'm asking to find out who you're trying to
>> speak for.

> Translation: David wishes to deflect the attention of the reader away
> from his refusal to review the painful (for him) evidence of the
> illogic of his arguments contained in the "costly mistakes" thread.

Yet another incorrect translation.  Meanwhile, I see you didn't answer
my question.

>>>> Incorrect.  I see you still can't do any better than simple
>>>> pontification.

>>> What alleged pontification?

>> Yours, Lucien.

> Typical Tholen unsubstantiated claim.

The substantiation is the same as your claim, which lacks any
explanation.

>>> I'm merely countering your illogic.

>> You can't do it with simple pontification, Lucien.

> Again the alledged pontification.

Nothing alleged about it, Lucien, given the lack of any explanation.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that I indicated that you *can* run.  I never
>>>> said

>>> Irrelevant, given that this thread is not concerned with running or
>>> hiding.

>> Irrelevant, given that I never said it is concerned with running or
>> hiding.

> Continued irrelevant statements,

Incorrect, given that my statements are quite relevant to what you wrote.

> the tools of the ineffective advocate.

You're erroneously presupposing that my statements are irrelevant, Lucien.

>>>> You've not countered my arguments,

>>> I have countered your arguments at length and with evidence.

>> Where is this alleged evidence, Lucien?

> The evidence is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

Impossible, given that you did not counter my arguments at length.

>>>> and my arguments are not uneducated

>>> Your arguments are profoundly uninformed.

>> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

> The proof, in full, is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

Impossible, given that my arguments included information about the
definition of the word "prevent".

>>>> at all, Lucien.  Once again, all you're doing is pontificating.

>>> Again the alleged pontification.

>> It's not merely alleged, Lucien.  It's been identified repeatedly
>> in this thread.

> On the contrary, you've merely identified my countering of your illogic
> and irrelevancies.

Without explanations for the alleged illogic and irrelevancies, which
constitutes pontification.

>>> I'm merely countering your illogic and irrelevancies.

>> What alleged illogic and irrelevancies, Lucien?

> See above and the "costly mistakes" thread.

Neither contains any identification of illogic or irrelevancies on my
part, Lucien.

>>>>> making no attempt to run or hide.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that I indicated that you can run and can't hide.

>>> More completely irrelevant statements, the tools of the ineffective
>>> advocate.

>> On the contrary, my statements are quite relevant to the statements

> Your statements are irrelevant to your JDK statements,

I was responding to your statements, Lucien, which they happen to follow.

> or the evidence in the "costly mistakes" thread.

I was responding to your statements, Lucien, which they happen to follow.

>> of yours they follow.

> Irrelevant, given that the thread is about your JDK statements

In which case your remarks are the irrelevant ones.

> and the evidence in the "costly mistakes" thread.

That was a statement of yours, Lucien.

>> How ironic that you should refer to the tools
>> of the ineffective advocate, given your use of pontification.

> Illogical, given that the use of pontification has not been proven.

Incorrect.  See above for the proof.

> Your illogic, however, has been repeatedly and painfully (for you)
> proven.

Where have you allegedly done that, Lucien?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 17:54:25
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380fe797$7$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <7uolop$9mdgt$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 04:29 PM,
>    "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]> said:
>
>
> > > > Um, excuse me!  This isn't a bug in the OS.  This is a problem with
the
> > > > USR ..inf files for the modems.  I have fought with this too and the
> > > > problem is the .inf file not correctly identifying itself as the
correct
> > > > driver for the device.  Since the device and drivers were created
after
> > > > Win95, it is up to the modem driver to be written correctly to work
with
> > > > Windows.
> > >
> > > Again you post pure bullshit FUD. The problem exists in Win98 which is
> > > later than the USR product and drivers.
> > >
> > So the problem still exists in the INF file.  It means they haven't
> > changed their drivers.
>
> Then you admit it is yet another bug since the drivers were installed by
> Windows, not from USR diskette.
>
Free clue asshole, MS don't develop the third party drivers.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: The Internet Group Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 17:58:01
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380fe761$6$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <7unobg$i4u$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 08:08 AM,
>    "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]> said:
>
>
> > Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:380e9f7a$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> > > On <7ulnvi$9kq58$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 01:48 PM,
> > >    "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]> said:
> > >
> > > > > In point of fact, most Windows 9x users are NOT on a network.
> > Therefore,
> > > > > MS has introduced needless overhead, aka a serious bug, to the
> > software.
> > > > > People on networks either have knowledge or technical support in
> > house.
> > > > > Individual users lack both.
> > >
> > > > That my friend is not a bug.  It is working as designed - not a bug.
> > >
> > > First of all, you are not my friend, never can be since you are a
liar,
> > > and have no right to assume such familiarity. Secondly, only a
MicroSoft
> > > Lemming would make such an outrageous statement.
> > >
> > Alright, let me rephrase.
>
> > That is not a bug *asshole*.  It is working as designed - not a bug.
>
>
> > How about telling me why something that works as it is designed is a bug
> > instead of calling me a liar and a lemming.  From what I've read of your
> > posts, reason doesn't enter into it, so I don't hold out much hope.
>
> Since you are such a stupid, ignorant, retarded moron, I will tell you. A
> so called "operating system" designed as the OS for the masses should not
> be so written that only one trained in networking and technical support
> can come close to making it stable.

Stability had nothing to do with my question.

> It would not be so overbloated with
> complex network support.

Complex network support was not at issue.  What was at issue was why the
inclusion of MS-CHAP is a bug.

> That is a failure not a feature.

It has nothing to do with being a failure, it is working as designed.

> Failures in the
> computer world are bugs, not features.
Yes they are.  If something is working as designed, it is not a failure, and
not a bug.

>
> Now, go get Mommy to explain it to you.
>
You still haven't explained after all that nonsense how if something is
working as it is designed, it is a bug.   Get your head out of your ass and
explain it.

I suspect your attention span is so short that you can't even remember why I
asked you this.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: The Internet Group Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 01:06:09
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:02
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
> >>   --Roberto Alsina
>
> > Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual would
> > do?
>
> Normal, well adjusted, relaxed individuals use quotations frequently,
> Marty.

More than 20 times in the same post when it is not even an applicable
quote?  Take a few deep breaths Dave...

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                        22-Oct-99 05:10:18
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380fe61e$3$obot$[e-mail]...
| On <7uoif5$g0$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 02:34 AM,
|    "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]> said:
|
| > BTW, he's correct.  Bob, how about knowing what the hell you're talking
| > about before spouting off, eh?  Think you could manage that just once?
|
| I issued the loudmouth a challenge he totally ignored. I am willing to
| wager serious money that I do know what I am talking about and that he is
| an absolute liar probably on Chief Thief Bill Gates' payroll. You are
| about to join him in the killfile.

This is fresh.  I posted a few messages to him and I'm already in his
killfile.  Guess he can't handle the truth.

That brings another question to mind.  He accuses me of ignoring his
challenge.  What challenge?  And how the hell can he say that I'm ignoring
him.  It is he who has joined me to his killfile.  Isn't he ignoring me?!?!


-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         22-Oct-99 05:40:02
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:02
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>>>>   --Roberto Alsina

>>> Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual would
>>> do?

>> Normal, well adjusted, relaxed individuals use quotations frequently,
>> Marty.

> More than 20 times in the same post

That was the remainder, Marty.

> when it is not even an applicable quote?

It's quite applicable, given that it was applied to the remainder, Marty.

> Take a few deep breaths Dave...

Unnecessary, Marty.

Now, a question for you.  Is an "infantile game" something that a normal,
well adjusted, relaxed individual would do?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   22-Oct-99 00:19:05
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:03
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: [e-mail] (Eric Bennett)

In article <7uo458$19c$[e-mail]>, "Chad Myers"
<[e-mail]> wrote:


> Did you know that Microsoft has been invesitgated by the
> FTC since like 1986?  Did you know that in 1990, I think
> (perhaps 91 or 92) the six-panel investigative team
> voted 5-1 that MS wasn't doing anything in violation of
> federal trade laws and all further invesigations by the
> FTC or DOJ should cease?


The FTC Commissioners deadlocked (2-2 as I recall) on whether or not to
continue pursuing Microsoft.  That was in 1993.

Source:
http://www2.computerworld.com/home/features.nsf/all/980512ms



What is your source for this supposed 5-1 vote?

--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

Drawing on my fine command of the language, I said nothing.
-Robert Benchley

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Ho You Kong Fan Club (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           22-Oct-99 00:09:10
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:03
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7uo23i$eiu$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 02:56 PM,
   "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]> said:


> Are you saying you didn't adminstrate them from a central location,
> didn't have a test environment, didn't have corporate standards.  Jeeeze
> no wonder you didn't have any stability.  Look for a new line of
> work.

We work for a variety of small to medium sized firms. Each has separate
needs, desires, methods of operation, etc. A firm with 30 or 50 seats
doesn't have the financial wherewithall to have a test department. Many of
these clients grew from less than a dozen employees in 1980 to 30, 50 even
100 by 1999. Most are not technically oriented enterprises, rather being
in financial, insurance, law, medicine, etc.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           22-Oct-99 00:21:09
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:03
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7uoiih$g0$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 02:36 AM,
   "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]> said:

> I guess some people are just pathetically ignorant, and hopelessly
> clueless.  Bob, get bent.

Go commit an anatomically impossible act upon yourself. It's the only way
you will ever get laid.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           22-Oct-99 00:22:08
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:03
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <fGQP3.681$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 03:16 AM,
   "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:


> Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:380f22c1$2$obot$[e-mail]...
> | On <0wDP3.13160$[e-mail]>, on 10/21/99 at 12:18 PM,
> |    "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> said:
> |
> [snip]
> |
> | If it were possible to fix the creeping registry corruption in Win 9x, I
> | would. However it is not. It is a fatal flaw in the program. Why do you
> | suppose that even MICROSOFT says not to deploy Win9x in a mission critical
> | envirnment? In most instances, no software has been added to the system.
> | Typically, the damn thing runs for about 3 or 4 weeks without problems.
> | Then random errors start to occur and continue to get worse to the point
> | where rebooting 3 or more times in an 8 hour day is required.
> |
> | This just doesn't happen very often with ?nix, OS/2, etc.

> Poppycock!  "What did you do just before it broke all by itself?"  Sound
> familiar?

No it does not. It does not because I never said OS/2 or ?ix broke all by
itself. Windows 9x seems the only "operating system" capable of that
worthless feat.




--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         22-Oct-99 06:12:10
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:03
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Roberto Alsina writes:

>>>>>>> I think I will indulge in some tholenisms, just for the bad old
>>>>>>> times' sake.

>>>>>> I wish you would, like indulging in some logic, but you keep
>>>>>> missing the mark by a wide margin.

>>>>> I'm afraid tholenism and logic are incompatible,

>>>> Incorrect.

>>> Tholenism is a word I just invented.

>> Incorrect.

> Can you show a previous definition of the term tholenism which shows
> it is compatible with logic?

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>>>> You were not nominated because of the fact you present, but
>>>>>>>>> because of another.

>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what
>>>>>>>> motivated you to submit a nomination.

>>>>>>> The fact for which you were nominated is not the fact that
>>>>>>> motivated me to nominate you.

>>>>>> You just contradicted yourself.  You just said, in effect, that
>>>>>> your motivation was not what motivated you.

>>>>> No, you just didn't understand me.

>>>> Incorrect.  I understood what you wrote.  If you didn't mean what
>>>> you wrote, that's your problem, not mine.

>>> I wrote what I meant.

>> Incorrect, unless of course you meant to contradict yourself.

> Or, of course, you could have misunderstood what I wrote.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>> If you fail to read what I write and understand what it means it's
>>> your problem.

>> I understood exactly what you wrote, Roberto.

> No.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>> I don't nominate every kook I meet.

>>>> Obviously, given that you didn't nominate yourself.

>>>>> I nominate kooks I meet and dislike.

>>>> Is that why you didn't nominate yourself, because you like
>>>> yourself?

>>> I already said several times I don't believe I am a kook.

>> You also claimed that one's self isn't in a position to make that
>> evaluation.

> I didn't say that. I said one's self is not impartial in the subject.

What makes you believe that?

>>>>> You were nominated because of the fact that you are (IMHO) a kook

>>>> Too bad you can't prove it.

>>> I can prove that it is my opinion.

>> Your opinion is irrelevant, Roberto.  The facts are relevant.

> I only need my opinion to convince myself to nominate you.

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> Your nomination, however says "this guy is a kook because he
>>>>> argues with eliza" (not an actual quote).

>>>> Which is a lie.

>>> When I made the nomination it was my belief that you argued with
>>> Eliza.

>> Your belief is irrelevant, Roberto.  The facts are relevant.

> No. My beliefs mark the road for my action. So, my beliefs are
> relevant to my actions, and my actions are facts.

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>> Kooky reasons

>>>>>> What's allegedly "kooky" about the reasons, Roberto?

>>>>> I'm afraid if you can't see it,

>>>> I can't see what isn't there to be seen, Roberto.

>>> That's just a subset of the things you can't see.

>> Prove that it is there to be seen, Roberto.

> Prove that what you can't see isn't there, Dave. I didn't claim there
> was anything to be seen. You claim there isn't. The onus is on you.
> I only claimed that if you couldn't see "it" you wouldn't understand
> "it". If "it" doesn't exist, you can not understand "it".

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>> That doesn't imply protons are not there to be seen.

>> I see you've got the logic backwards.  I'm not surprised.

> My logic is straight. Your mind, however, is way too schematic.

What makes you believe that?

>>> Therefore, that you can't see what's kooky about the reasons is not
>>> proof that there is nothing kooky about the reasons.

>> That there aren't reasons does explain why I can't see them, however.

> It is one of the possible explanations. Of course it is not the only
> valid one. Prove it, if you think you can.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> you can't understand the explanation.

>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that there is a logical
>>>> explanation.

>>> I know there is one.

>> Feel free to present your knowledge, if you think you can, Roberto.

> I feel free. Thank you!

What makes you believe that?

>>> I just believe you are uncapable of understanding it.

>> What you believe is irrelevant, Roberto; what you can prove is
>> relevant.

> I say what I believe is relevant. Prove it isn't, if you think you can.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> Why should I nominate a person I do not believe to be a kook?

>>>>>> Your beliefs are irrelevant, Roberto.  Your actions are relevant.

>>>>> So, you are saying I should nominate a person I don't believe to
>>>>> be a kook?

>>>> Still having reading comprehension problems, Roberto?  I'm saying
>>>> that your actions are relevant.

>>> And here I was, believing that you were in some way responding to my
>>> question.

>> I did respond to your question, Roberto, correcting your
>> miscomprehension of what I wrote.  You asked what I was saying,
>> and I told you what I was saying.

> I didn't ask you what you were saying, originally. I asked
> "Why should I nominate a person I do not believe to be a kook?"
>
> You have not given a real answer to that question. Even a "I will
> not answer that question" will do.

What makes you believe that?

>>>>> but I was not the one that argued with Eliza,

>>>> Neither did I.

>>> So you say. Prove it, if you think you can.

>> Simple:  look at the addresses of the postings to which I responded
>> and note how they coincide with real individuals who have contributed
>> to this newsgroup.

> Your writing was a conscious response to text that was composed by the
> non-sentient entity known as Eliza.

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>>>>>> Fear not, you're still a kook in my heart.

>>>>>>>> What you have in your heart is irrelevant to me.

>>>>>>> But not to me,

>>>>>> Then start your own newsgroup and post articles to which you can
>>>>>> respond.

>>>>> If we apply the same standard to you, the world would be a better
>>>>> place quickly.

>>>> Illogical, given that USENET doesn't extend to the entire world
>>>> population.

>>> Improving a part of the world improves the world as a whole,

>> It only improves a part, Roberto.

> The world's condition is nothing but the condition of its parts.

What makes you believe that?

>>> If you have nothing to hide, why hide?

>> I'm not hiding, Roberto.

> Ok, can I show those emails, then?

What makes you believe that?

>> The fact that you send email, but don't want
>> to receive responses, is yet another piece of evidence for your
>> bizarre behavior.

> I have never sent an email and asked not to get a response.
> I have configured a computer program to politely inform people that I
> am not reading their responses, however. Rarely has anyone continued
> to exchange email with that program, with the notable exception of
> some Dave Tholen.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>> Do you deny sending me email?

> I deny having sent you 7 specific emails, which were sent by a computer
> program, and to which you wrote responses.

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>> I respond to postings made by people.
>>>>>> Some of those people post responses using personal attacks; some
>>>>>> post responses using deletion tactics to avoid dealing with
>>>>>> certain issues; some post responses generated by computer programs;
>>>>>> I deal with all those responses.

>>>>> A posting generated by a computer program without human
>>>>> intervention is hardly a posting made by "people", Dave.

>>>> The Eliza responses involved human intervention, Roberto, a fact
>>>> that you still don't realize.

>>> And there was no human intervention when you argued with my bouncer,
>>> Dave,

>> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of some argument,
>> Roberto.

> Do you authorize me to show those emails that you say were not an
> argument?

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                      22-Oct-99 08:10:26
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 05:24:03
Subj: Re: cincyteamos2?

From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])

Died a couple years ago.

Craig Benbow? ([e-mail]?) wrote (Fri, 22 Oct 1999 13:20:31
>What happened to TeamOS2 at cincy?

 '`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
 Corne1 Huth  -  http://40th.com/
 Bullet database engines/servers 3.1  Win32-WinCE-OS2-Linux+

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            22-Oct-99 10:09:08
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 10:21:21
Subj: Re: Rudolph The Rednose Hooters Here

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:56:09, Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:

> [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > THis IS it: The site where they talk about when you are 50 years old.
> >
> > http://huizen.dds.nl/~jansen20
>
> Heh... is this Karel's home page?  :-)
>

Nope. If it were mine, there would be less underwear and more - um...
- anatomy.

And fistfucking is where I really draw the line (we tried it once, but
all my girlfriend and I got were sore knuckles from rubbing our fists
together. It didn't "do" much for us either. Maybe we did it wrong).

And what *is* this "hetronet"? Talk about tacky...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

|---------------------------------------------------|
|            <undefined O/S> boot options           |
|                                                   |
|               Please choose from list             |
|                                                   |
|       <crash>         <OS/2>        <linux>       |
|---------------------------------------------------|

NT-vocates made trouble, so here's the first P. C. sig-line.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 10:20:21
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 10:21:21
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>> Then why did you claim that JDK 1.1.8 implements Java 2 security
classes
>>>>>>> when it does not?

>>>>>> Prove that it does not, Mike.  I've provided a reference to my
evidence.
>>>>>> All you've done is pontificate, as usual.

>>>>> IBM's additional security classes are in com.ibm.* packages.

>>>> We're talking about JDK 1.1.8, Mike.

>>> I know, Dave; and in IBM's JDK 1.1.8, IBM implemented additional
>>> security classes in the com.ibm.* packages.  What part of that didn't
>>> you understand?

>> The relevance, Mike.

> Figures.  The com.ibm.* packages are not in JDK 1.2;

IBM hasn't released a JDK 1.2 for OS/2, Mike.

> thus, they do not contain "Java 2 security classes".

Irrelevant, given that IBM stated that the Java 2 security classes are
in JDK 1.1.8, not JDK 1.2.

> That's the relevence.

Rather, it's your illogic at work again.

>>>>> Those packages are not in JDK 1.2.

>>>> IBM hasn't released a JDK 1.2 for OS/2, Mike.

>>> No duh.  But the fact that the so-called "Java 2 security classes" are
>>> not in Java 2, means they aren't Java 2 security classes.

>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail] indicates otherwise,
>> Mike.

> Irrelevent.

The evidence is quite relevant, Mike.

> The actual contents of the JDK supercedes the earlier newsgroup article
> that predicted what the JDK would contain.

It's not a prediction, Mike.  The article indicates what was contained
in the preview available that same day.

> Consider these two pieces of evidence:
>
>  a. In January, IBM claims that a future OS/2 JDK will be faster than
>     all other JDKs.

Irrelevant, Mike, given that we're dealing with something available
that same day.

>  b. In July, IBM ships the JDK in question, and tests show that it is
>     *not* faster than all other JDKs.

Irrelevant, Mike, given that we're dealing with something available
that same day.

> Item b. is more compelling evidence than item a., since item a. is
> merely a prediction, wherease item b. represents reality.

Both items aren't evidence at all, Mike, given that they are both
irrelevant.

> Such is the case here.

Balderdash, Mike.

> You point to a press release about a future JDK.

Incorrect.  I pointed to an article about a preview available that same
day.

> I point to the actual JDK in question.

Incorrect, Mike.  You haven't even used the JDK.

> I win.

Typical Timbol pontification.

>>>>> If you refer to those classes from your program, your program will fail
>>>>> on a reference implementation of Java 2.

>>>> Prove it, Mike.

>>> Look at the contents of rt.jar in a reference implementation of Java 2.
>>> There are no security classes in the com.ibm.* package.

>> MT] in IBM's JDK 1.1.8, IBM implemented additional security classes in the
>> MT] com.ibm.* packages.
>>
>> Do make up your mind, Mike.

> Do try to follow along, Dave.

I have been following along, Mike.  That's how I managed to note your
inconsistency.

> The rt.jar file in Java 2 contains no security classes in the com.ibm.*
> packages.

MT] in IBM's JDK 1.1.8, IBM implemented additional security classes in the
MT] com.ibm.* packages.

> My statement stands.

Which one, Mike?

> You are obviously in way over your head,

Obviously not, Mike, given that I have the evidence on my side.  All
you have is pontification.

> and you really don't understand what I'm talking about at all.

Try a consistent argument, Mike.

>>> The classes IBM included in their version of JDK 1.1.8 are not part of
>>> Java 2.  Any reference to those classes will fail, since the classes
>>> will not be found.  That's how Java works, Dave; if you refer to a
>>> missing class, you get an exception.

>> The key word here is "if".  Prove that the classes are missing, Mike.

> public class DaveIsAMoron {

Typical invective, and a clear sign that you've lost the argument.

> Run that class on a Java 2 reference platform.  It'll give you your
> answer.

Namely that you don't have an argument.

>>>>> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.

>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

>>> I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.

>> Wouldn't be the first time you've looked at something and missed it.

> Despite your "typical invective", my statement stands.

..without any substantiation.  Typical Timbol pontification.

>>> The classes are in jar files, which are easily read on non-OS/2
>>> platforms.  You'd know this if you actually knew something about
>>> the subject at hand.

>> I know what IBM wrote, Mike, and they are more familiar with their
>> product than you are.

> Actually, I'm more familiar with their product than IBM was when
> the article in question was written.

Precious.  Here's Timbol claiming to know more about IBM's product
than IBM.  Did you even download the product at the time the article
in question was written, Mike?  Apparently not, as you've shown no
awareness of the product.

> At that time, the product did not exist.

Incorrect, Mike.  The preview was available that same day.

> You information is old, and incorrect.

Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.

> If you have any current information to back you up, please, feel
> free to share it.

Unnecessary, Mike.  Of course, you can do likewise, but all you
have to offer is pontification.

>>>>>>> Then why did you claim Swing is part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8
>>>>>>> when it is not?

>>>>>> Prove that it does not, Mike.  I've provided a reference to my
evidence.
>>>>>> All you've done is pontificate, as usual.

>>>>> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.

>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

>>> See above.  I see you have no counter-evidence.

>> On the contrary, I have
>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]

> And, as I demonstrated, my evidence wins.

Balderdash, Mike.  Your evidence consists of pontification.

> Reality beats predictions any day.

Let me know when you have some reality to offer, Mike.

>>>>> The Swing classes are not included.  You can download them separately,

>>>> Is that the argument you intend to hang your hat on, Mike???  IBM states
>>>> that the functionality was implemented in 1.1.8, and you claim it wasn't
>>>> because IBM split the download into multiple components?

>>> I claimed that Swing isn't part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.  It isn't.
>>> It's an add-on, just like it is for other 1.1.x JDKs.

>> Ah, the old semantic argument.  Exactly what difference are you trying
>> to make between being included and being an add-on, Mike?

> Being included means it's part of the JDK.  Being an add-on means it's
> an extension.

As I suspected, it's a semantic argument.  Just what do you think the
word "Kit" means, Mike?  Having lost the argument, you're now turning
to semantics.

> It does not represent a feature of IBM's JDK 1.1.8 that
> isn't in other versions of JDK 1.1.8,

Oh really?  Are you saying that the version of Swing that IBM included
in 1.1.8 is the same as the Swing in other versions of JDK 1.1.8 and
that there is nothing new in the version of Swing for 1.2 that IBM
could have included in 1.1.8?

> since it isn't in IBM's, and it's available for all the JDKs.

Oh really?  Are you saying that everything in IBM's Swing for 1.1.8
is available for all the JDKs, Mike?

>>>>> just as you can download them separately for the reference 1.1.x JDKs.

>>>> Are they identical, Mike?

>>> They provide the same functionality and they implement the same API.

>> I asked if they are identical, Mike.  A simple yes or no would suffice.

> Your question is irrelevent;

Incorrect, Mike.

> though the classes were compiled with a different compiler, they provide
> identical functionality as the same version of Swing on other platforms.
> From a programming standpoint, they are identical.

Prove it, Mike.

>>>>>>> Why are you claiming Swing is "Java 1.2 functionality" when you
earlier
>>>>>>> claimed that only features introduced with Java 1.2 qualify?

>>>>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]

>>>>> Irrelevent.  Swing was introduced before Java 1.2.

>>>> Are you claiming that Swing for 1.1 is identical to Swing for 1.2, Mike?

>>> No, I'm stating that Swing was introduced before Java 1.2,

>> The 1.2 version of Swing was not introduced before 1.2, Mike.

> Dave, Swing isn't up to version 1.2 yet.

So, you're now saying that Swing isn't in 1.2?

> You're flailing really badly.

How ironic, coming from the person who is flailing really badly,
as evidenced by your need to resort to semantic arguments.

>>> which proves that your claim is incorrect.

>> It does no such thing, Mike.  My claim is that 1.1.8 implements 1.2
>> functionality.  An implementation of Swing for 1.2 in 1.1.8 says
>> nothing about when Swing was introduced.

> Yet IBM does not implement "Swing for 1.2" in JDK 1.1.8.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail] states otherwise, Mike.

> They cannot,as the version of Swing for JDK 1.2 requires features which
> IBM does not support in JDK 1.1.8.

Prove it, Mike.  Some lines up you claimed that Swing for 1.1.8 has
identical functionality to Swing for 1.2, yet here you are claiming
that 1.2 requires features that aren't in 1.1.8.  Do make up your
mind, Mike.

> They implement Swing for JDK 1.1.*,

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail] states otherwise, Mike.

> which is the same version available for JDK 1.1.* on other platforms.

At least you have indirectly acknowledged that Swing has evolved from
1.1.8 to 1.2, thus your argument that Swing was introduced before 1.2
is irrelevant, since the claim says nothing about when something was
implemented, but rather what 1.2 functionality is included in 1.1.8.
New Swing functionality appeared in 1.2, and therefore IBM can implement
that functionality in 1.1.8, justifying their statement.  Meanwhile, all
you can offer is an irrelevant argument about when Swing was introduced.

>>>>> No irony involved, Dave, since that article is not the subject
>>>>> at hand.

>>>> On the contrary, it's ironic indeed, given that you were talking about
>>>> ignorance of the subject, and the subject is the Java 1.2 functionality
>>>> that was implemented in 1.1.8, which the referenced article just
>>>> happens to describe, and about which you are ignorant.

>>> The reference article doesn't describe that at all.

>> How would you know, Mike, given that you haven't even been able to find
>> the article?

> Because you presented "the relevant piece" of the article.

There's more to the article than just that, Mike, and you claimed that
the article doesn't describe that *at all*, indicating familiarity with
the entire article, yet you've claimed that you can't find it, so one
of the two claims is obviously a lie.

>>>>> As I mentioned, I couldn't find the message you indicate.
>>>>> Repost it, if you wish to refer to it.

>>>> Here's the relevant piece, Mike:
>>>>
>>>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>>>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security
>>>> ] classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's
>>>> ] implementation of the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.

>>> I'll note that the only reference in "the relevant piece" to "Java 2"
>>> is "Java 2 security classes".

>> IBM referred to Java 2 functionality in the plural, Mike, and the
>> sentence above refers to more than one item.

> I don't see the phrase "Java 2 functionality" in your excerpt, Dave.

Exactly what do you think Java 2 security classes are, Mike,
non-functionality?

>>> RMI over IIOP, COMM, and Swing are not referred to as "Java 2
>>> functionality".

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> The basis of "the relevant piece" of the article.

Read the rest of it, Mike.

>>> In fact, the only piece that might be "Java 2 functionality" is "will
>>> include Java 2 security classes."  Interestingly, it's written in future
>>> tense.

>> That's because IBM is talking about the final release, Mike.

> So they're making predictions about what the final release will contain.

..while indicating what is contained in the preview release available
that same day.

> Glad you agree.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Mike?  I haven't indicated
any such agreement.

>> The article also states:
>>
>> ] the Version 1.1.8 Preview is available today for early testing.
>>
>> Read the evidence, Mike, before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

> As I said, Dave, I couldn't find the article.

That's your problem, Mike.  I tried to find it on deja.com just a
moment ago, and it came up with no trouble whatsoever in seconds.
Are you browser-imparied, Mike?

> So far, nothing you've presented from the article has disproven my
> position.

Balderdash, Mike.  I've presented evidence that IBM implemented
Java 1.2 functionality in 1.1.8.

> The availability of a Preview is completely irrelevent.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Mike.

>>> Now that JDK 1.1.8 is actually available, it's clear that
>>> "Java 2 security classes" are *not* provided.

>> Just because you can't find them doesn't mean they're not provided,
>> Mike.  Did you bother to download the preview when it was "actually
>> available"?

> I didn't download the preview,

It figures.

> I downloaded the actual release.

And on what platform are you running this "actual release", Mike?

> The classes aren't there.

You also couldn't find the June article, yet I didn't have any trouble.
Obviously what you can't see doesn't prove anything.

> What part of that confuses you?

I'm not confused at all, Mike.

>>>>> In any case, I'll just note that I've referred to the actual contents
>>>>> of the JDK in question, and have provided, as evidence, references to
>>>>> and quotes from Sun's official web site.

>>>> Inadequate, Mike.

>>> On the contrary, the contents of the JDK disprove your claims that it
>>> includes the items you claim,

>> Wouldn't be the first time you've looked at something and missed it.

> You've got a horribly weak "counterargument", Dave.

On the contrary, my counterargument is just fine, Mike.  Your argument
is horribly weak.

> You make not a single point.

Having trouble counting, Mike?  I've made several points.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 10:20:21
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 10:21:21
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

>>> and the quotes from Sun's web site prove that the items you mention
>>> don't count as "Java 2 functionality".

>> They do no such thing, Mike.

> Yes, Dave, they do.

Balderdash, Mike.

> RMI/IIOP is an addon,

There's that semantic argument again.

> the COMM API is standard extension,

Has it not changed from 1.1.8 to 1.2, Mike?

> and Swing was released before Java 2.

Irrelevant, Mike, for reasons that I described clearly above.

>>>>> You, on the other hand, present a reference to a newsgroup
>>>>> article,

>>>> Provided by IBM, Mike.

>>> Tell me, Dave, when was the article in question posted?

>> June 12, Mike.

> I see.

On the contrary, you have yet to see the article, Mike.

> Since then, of course, JDK 1.1.8 has been released.

Meanwhile, the preview was available the same day.

> Your information is out of date.

Prove it, Mike.

>>> Then tell me when JDK 1.1.8 was released.

>> The preview was available the same day, Mike.  That's why it says
>>
>> ] the Version 1.1.8 Preview is available today for early testing.
>>
>> Ignorance of the evidence will get you nowhere, Mike.

> It isn't the preview I'm talking about, Dave;

Translation:  you want to ignore the evidence.

> I'm talking about the actual release.

But only about what you can see, which isn't much of an argument,
Mike.  Have you actually run the JDK?  Apparently not.

> The actual release is, obviously, more recent than the article
> in question.

Which proves nothing, Mike.

> The contents of the actual release supercede the prediction of
> what the release would contain.

Feel free to present an independently derived list of the contents,
rather than just what you were able to find, Mike.  You research
skills are obviously lacking, given your inability to find the
referenced article.

> My evidence supercedes yours.

Your evidence consists of your word.  My evidence consists of IBM's
word, Mike.

> I win.

Typical Timbol pontification.

> If you want continue, find something current,

If you "want continue", find an independent, unbiased list of the
contents, Mike.

> not a prediction of the future.

I'm not relying on a prediction of the future, Mike, given that the
preview was available the same day.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                       22-Oct-99 12:01:26
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 10:21:21
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: Illya Vaes <[e-mail]>

Chad Myers wrote:
[ Quoting restored from MS "Standard" to actual standard, ie. replies after
text that's being replied to ]
>"Nathan Herren" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>news:[e-mail]...
>>What you missed is that this is a parody (totally false) on the
>>Software Publishers Association (the organization dedicated to software
>>copyright compliance) promoting pirating software to reduce M$ income. It
>>compares favorably to M$ lobbying effort (totally true) to reduce
>>monetary allocations for the Department of Justices' Antitrust division.
>Ahh... ok, thank you for clarifying that.
>Although MS's (or M$ as you childishly call them) efforts
>are not uncommon with a big-dog corporation. That's how
>you play the game, and MS has to play to keep in the business.

How'bout competing on quality of their products and using ethical means of
doing business (IOW just 'competing')?

--
Illya Vaes   ([e-mail])        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel [phone], Fax [phone]           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                       22-Oct-99 11:49:24
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 10:21:21
Subj: Re: John Carmack and OSses

From: Illya Vaes <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>>> http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/10/15/1012230.shtml
>>Let me be the first to issue the patented, "But what does this have to
>>do with OS/2?"
>I just thought it was interesting. Don't you? After all, he is a fellow
>game maker.

This group isn't about games.
Either you were wrong to post it (only!) here, or you have other motives than
"it's interesting because he is a fellow game maker" and haven't got the guts
to say so.
Either way, you're a loser.

--
Illya Vaes   ([e-mail])        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel [phone], Fax [phone]           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 10:35:29
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 10:21:21
Subj: Re: JAVA:SUN's access to NT code ends with 4.0

From: [e-mail]

Todd Kepus writes:

> Many APIs (especially the 'K' calls) change from version to version.  MS
> won't publish these because they *may* change in the future.  They don't
> want application developers to experience problems if MS changes something
> in a service pack, for instance.
>
> It doens't mean they are 'secret' and trying to use them to their own
> advantage.

It doesn't mean that they aren't trying to use them to their own
advantage, John, Todd, whoever.  Has Microsoft never used any
undocumented Windows APIs in its applications, John, Todd, whoever?

> For example, no application can 'fix' the OS/2 SIQ problem,

What alleged problem, John, Todd, whoever?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                22-Oct-99 07:11:25
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 10:21:21
Subj: Re: Giga says Win2k worth the money

From: [e-mail] (Jerry McBride)

In article <[e-mail]>,
David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Giga report: Benefits of Windows 2000 outweigh deployment costs
>
>Companies will be able to recover the costs of deploying Windows 2000 within
>approximately 6 to 12 month, report finds
>Redmond, WAùNothing good comes for free, but with Microsoft« Windows« 2000
>companies can get a lot for their investment.
>
> Research conducted by Giga Information Group, an independent IT research
>advisory company based in Cambridge, Mass., concludes that the benefits of
>migrating to Windows 2000 outweigh its costs. Organizations deploying Windows
>2000 on new hardware will see economic returns resulting from significant
>improvements in reliability, performance and stability, the study found, and
>companies will be able to recover their initial costs within approximately 6
to
>12 months.
>Giga's conclusion: The benefits can make deploying Windows 2000 a win-win
>solution for most companies.
              ^^^^

There you go... That's the out! If your company buys into the w2k bullshit
stream and ends up loosing all those "promised" benefits... then your company
falls into the group NOT covered by the "most companies" group...

It's amazing... Same MicroSoft party line, same MicroSoft bullshit that has
been printed for win95/98 and winnt... "You guys" are never going to learn!
$1000.00 bucks a seat... just to upgrade to another round of windows...

You gotta' love this shit...


--- one big snip ---


--

*******************************************************************************

*            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...
*
*       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.151 for your next java project at:
*
*
*
*                      GET IT NOW! WHILE IT'S STILL FREE!
*
*
*
*                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx
*
*******************************************************************************


/----------------------------------------\
| From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
|         [e-mail]             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TEAM-NETREXX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  22-Oct-99 08:07:16
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

S*it happens: Something claiming to be a <[e-mail]>
tholened:

> >> Incorrect, Lucien.
>
> > No, it is correct.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

Uh, Tholen, it  doesn't work like that.  You're automatically disqualified
from rendering judgement on yourself -- you might have a personal stake in
the outcome, you see.  I don't see anyone else rushing to defend you, so
it's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  22-Oct-99 08:07:16
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Uh-oh, he's still at it: something claiming to be a
<[e-mail]> tholened:
> >>>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
> >>>>   --Roberto Alsina
>
> >>> Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
would
> >>> do?

I think Marty knows the answer to this one: Tholen's anything *but* "a
normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual ."

> Now, a question for you.  Is an "infantile game" something that a normal,
> well adjusted, relaxed individual would do?

A normal person has to consider to whom he writes, Tholen (not that you
would know that), and in this case the answer is a resounding "yes!"


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  22-Oct-99 08:07:17
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something pontificating tholened:

> > Again the alleged pontification.
>
> It's not alleged at all, Lucien.  The lack of any supporting
> explanation demonstrates that you're only pontificating.

Pontification is something you know all about, Tholen, at least according to
the definition you give above.  That is your primary mode of
non-communication, Tholen.  Lucien was not imitating you.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                  22-Oct-99 08:07:19
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Ugh. Claiming to be a <[e-mail]>, it tholened:

> Normal, well adjusted, relaxed individuals use quotations frequently,
> Marty.

So what do you do then, Tholen?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 12:10:12
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>> No, the statement is wrong.  If "Fortran 90 functionality" is
>>>>>>> promised, then one expects functionality equivalent to Fortran 90.

>>>>>> Illogical. If one expects functionality equivalent to Fortran 90, then
>>>>>> the compiler would have been called a Fortran 90 compiler, Mike.  It
>>>>>> wasn't.  That alone should tell you something.  Why do you think IBM is
>>>>>> calling their JDK 1.1.8 rather than 1.2?

>>>>> Because it doesn't support the functionality of JDK 1.2,

>>>> It does support some of it, Mike.

>>> It supports *some* of it.  Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2.
>>> It doesn't have JDK 1.2 functionality, though.  Only some of it.

>> Earlier you said it does not, Mike.

> Incorrect.

MT] Ask a reasonable person if JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2 functionality.
MT] The answer will be no.

Or are you admitting that you aren't a reasonable person, Mike?

> I disagreed with the statement that "JDK 1.1.8 implements
> JDK 1.2 functionality."

Logically, the statements mean the same thing, Mike, given that if all
the functionality was implemented, then it would have been called 1.2.
You've admitted that some has been implemented, thus Java 1.2
functionality has indeed been implemented.  The rest has simply been
a case of you arguing for the sake of argument.

>>>>> which is the point.

>>>> The point is that it's perfectly correct to state that JDK 1.1.8
>>>> implements JDK 1.2 functionality, because it does, Mike.  Nobody
>>>> should logically expect it to implement all of the 1.2 functionality,
>>>> because otherwise IBM would have called it 1.2.  IBM did not.  There's
>>>> a reason for that, and if you were capable of comprehending that
>>>> reason, then you couldn't logically conclude that "implements 1.2
>>>> functionality" means "all" rather than "some" of the functionality.

>>> You're changing your argument.  You're now saying that the important
>>> phrase isn't "implements JDK 1.2 functionality", the important phrase
>>> is "JDK 1.1.8".

>> That doesn't represent any change, Mike.  The first phrase is
>> important because it tells you what functionality is being referred
>> to,

> Exactly.  JDK 1.2 functionality.

How does that prove that I've changed my argument, Mike?

>> and the second phrase is important because it ought to tell you
>> that only some of the functionality is included, otherwise they
>> wouldn't be using that older version number.

> Not so.

Illogical, Mike.

> The name of the product is irrelevent.

We haven't been discussing the name of the product, Mike, which happens
to be "The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
Technology Edition".  The version number, namely 1.1.8, is quite
relevant, because it's not 1.2 for a good reason, namely that IBM did
not implement all of the 1.2 functionality, thus any claim that the
phrase "implements Java 1.2 functionality" is ambiguous is simply
ignoring that reason.

> The functionality provided by the product is relevent.

And you've admitted that it supports some of it.  Of course, you also
claimed that I was 0 for 4, so one can only wonder what the "some" is,
if none of the ones I listed qualify in your mind.

>>> If you say "Product X implements JDK 1.2 functionality", would not
>>> a reasonable person conclude that Product X actually does have
>>> functionality equivalent to JDK 1.2?

>> Not if X stands for JDK 1.1.8.

> You're dodging the point because it proves you wrong.

I haven't dodged the point at all, Mike, and it does not prove me wrong.

> The phrase "implements JDK 1.2 functionality" leads people to conclude
> that the functionality of JDK 1.2 is implemented.

On the contrary, it leads people to conclude that it implements JDK 1.2
functionality, Mike.  That's because that's what was written.  You can't
arbitrarily twist words around and claim that that's what was said.

>>> JDK 1.1.8 doesn't support the functionality of JDK 1.2

>> JDK 1.1.8 implements JDK 1.2 functionality, Mike.  I've listed that
>> functionality, Mike.  All you could do is pontificate that those
>> functions aren't really included.

> No, Dave, I've proven that what you've listed is not included.

You've done no such thing, Mike.  Rather, you've tried to argue
semantics over what is "included" versus what is an "add on" and
over when something was introduced.

>>>>>>>>> Which features are you referring to?

>>>>>>>> The features from Java 1.2 that IBM chose to implement in Java 1.1.8,
>>>>>>>> Mike.

>>>>>>> Which features would those be?

>>>>>> Java 2 security classes,

>>>>> Wrong.  IBM did not implement Java 2 security classes in Java 1.1.8.

>>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>>>> Mike.

>>> Can't find that article with deja.com, Dave.

>> That's your problem, Mike.  Amazing how much you like to argue about
>> Java for OS/2, but how little you like to follow the news about it.
>> I'll give you a hint, Mike:  the article appeared in comp.os.os2.announce
>> and was submitted by an IBMer several months ago.  Where have you been?

> I don't read comp.os.os2.announce.

That's your problem, Mike.  I suggest you do so before you get into
arguments.

> I do Java programming,

Irrelevant, Mike, unless you do programming with IBM's JDK for OS/2.
But why would you do that?

> and OS/2 is far behind in that department.

How far is "far behind", Mike?

> c.o.o.announce would have nothing of relevence to me.

On the contrary, it had something of relevance to this argument, in
which you are involved, Mike.

>>> Repost it if you want to refer to it.

>> Here's the relevant excerpt:
>>
>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security
>> ] classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's
>> ] implementation of the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.

Note:  no response.

>>> In any case, what some article on usenet refers to is irrelevent.

>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, as it represents IBM's word
>> about an IBM product, as opposed to your word about an IBM product
>> that you have no reason to use.

> It represents IBM's announcement about a future IBM product.

It represents IBM's announcement about a preview version that was
available for download the same day, Mike.

> My comments reflect the actual contents of the IBM product in
> question.

Prove it, Mike.

> I win.

Typical Timbol pontification.  You can't win, because you've admitted:

MT] It supports *some* of it.  Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2.

and because you've claimed that the phrase "implements Java 1.2
functionality" could mean either "some" or "all", but the "all"
interpretation is illogical, as explained above.  So, the only logical
alternative is that it implements some of the functionality, and you've
agreed that it does (see the quotation above).  Thus you've actually
lost by virtue of that agreement.

>>> The facts are relevent.  IBM did not implement Java 2 security
>>> classes in JDK 1.1.8.

>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>> Mike.

> Not so.

How would you know, Mike, given that you haven't read the article?

> The message merely states IBM's intention to deliver
> "Java 2 security classes" in JDK 1.1.8.

On the contrary, the message states more than just that, Mike.  It also
states that the preview was available for download that same day.

> It does not say that JDK 1.1.8 contains those classes.

It does say that the preview contains those classes, Mike.

> Indeed, it does not.

Prove it, Mike.  Don't simply pontificate that you looked.  You also
looked for the article in question and couldn't find it, even though
I had no trouble whatsoever finding it only moments ago.

>>>>> The extra security classes that they include in the Java 1.1.8 JDK are
>>>>> not included in Java 1.2.

>>>> IBM refers to them as Java 2 security classes, Mike.

>>> Irrelevent.  IBM also refers to OS/2 as "the premiere platform for
>>> Java development".

>> Where did IBM make such a reference, Mike?

> Irrelevent to the issue at hand.

Then why did you bring it up, Mike?  Another one of your diversionary
tactics?

>>> What IBM claims does not override the facts.

>> Do you even understand what IBM has claimed, Mike?

> Yes, Dave, I do.

Then why did you make the claim about "the premiere platform for
Java development" above, Mike?

> They did not claim that JDK 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2
> functionality.

Incorrect, Mike.

> You've been claiming that.

Actually, that was Joseph's choice of words, Mike, not mine.  You
claimed that he was wrong.  I simply explained why he is not wrong.
Get the history of the discussion right, Mike, if you don't want to
look like a fool.

>>>>> In fact, they are not allowed to do what you claim; licensees are
>>>>> barred from adding classes into the namespace of the the core JDK
>>>>> packages.

>>>> Then why does Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]
>>>> indicate otherwise, Mike?

>>> What the article indicates to you and what the article actually says
>>> are vastly different things.

>> In that case, what I actually claimed and what you think I claimed
>> are vastly different things.  I never made any claim about classes
>> being added into the namespace of the core JDK.  I merely claimed
>> that 1.1.8 includes Java 2 security classes, and that's what the
>> article says.  You're the one who twisted that around, Mike.

> The article does not say that.

On the contrary, the articles does say that Java 2 security classes
are included, Mike.

> The article uses future tense.

Mike, just how many times do I have to tell you that the preview was
available for download on that same day?  That was the present at the
time.

> The article is, as you say "predicting the future".

Mike, just how many times do I have to tell you that the preview was
available for download on that same day?  That does not involve the
future.

> The article's prediction is incorrect.

Prove it, Mike.

>>> The security classes that IBM *added* are in the com.ibm.* packages.

>> Irrelevant, Mike.  Doesn't change the fact that IBM stated that Java 2
>> security classes are included.

> Quite relevent, Dave.

Feel free to explain the relevance, if you think you can, Mike.

> What IBM previously predicted about the future does not override
> the reality of the present.

The present involved the availability of the preview, Mike.

>>> The security classes that are part of Java 2 are in the java.security.*
>>> packages.  They are not the same classes.

>> What's different about them, Mike, their location?

> They're in different packages, thus they are different classes.

How are Java 2 security classes different from Java 2 security classes,
Mike?

> Basic Java language rules, Dave.

More like basic illogic on your part.  IBM clearly calls them Java 2
security classes.  Here you are claiming that they are not Java 2
security classes.

>>>>>> Remote Method Invocation over IIOP,

>>>>> Wrong.  RMI over IIOP is not a Java 2 feature; it is a standard
>>>>> extension.

>>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates
>>>> otherwise, Mike.

>>> Sun's web site indicates the truth.

>> Sun does not speak for IBM, Mike.

> Irrelevent;

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Mike, because Sun didn't put
together IBM's package.

> Sun speaks for Sun,

We're not talking about Sun's JDK, Mike.

> and Sun defines Java 2.

And IBM defines IBM's product, Mike, not you or Sun.

> Your only counterargument is that Sun doesn't speak for IBM.

That's not the only counterargument I've used, Mike.  Haven't you
bothered to comprehend the hundreds of lines that this discussion
has involved?

> So what?  IBM cannot decree that something is a Java 2 feature, since
> they don't own Java 2.

It wasn't a decree, Mike.  It was a statement of Java 1.2 functionality
that was included in the 1.1.8 package.

> I win this point.

Balderdash, Mike.

>>>>> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.

>>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>>>> Mike.

>>> Download the JDK from IBM's web site, Dave.  The classes aren't in it.

>> Wouldn't be the first time you couldn't find something that is there.

> I offer proof,

What alleged proof, Mike?  Your word?  According to your word, you
couldn't find the article.  So what?  I had no trouble finding it.

> and your only counterargument

That's not the only counterargument I've used, Mike.  Haven't you
bothered to comprehend the hundreds of lines that this discussion
has involved?

> is an insult.

It happens to be the truth, Mike, given your inability to find the
article.  If you find it insulting, that's your problem.  Perhaps
you should try a little harder to find referenced articles.

> I win this point as well.

Balderdash, Mike.

>>>>>> the COMM API,

>>>>> Wrong.  The Communications API is also not a part of Java 2.

>>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates otherwise,
>>>> Mike.

>>> Sun's web site indicates the truth.

>> Sun does not speak for IBM, Mike.

> Sun defines Java 2, and IBM does not.

And IBM defines IBM's product, Mike, not you or Sun.

> Regardless of what IBM might state, the Communications API is not
> part of Java 2.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
Mike.

> Again, you have no counterargument,

Incorrect, Mike.  Read the article.

> so I win this point as well.

Balderdash, Mike.

>>>>> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK

>>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>>>> Mike.

>>> Download the JDK from IBM's web site, Dave.  The classes aren't in it.

>> Wouldn't be the first time you couldn't find something that is there.

> Again, I offer proof,

What alleged proof, Mike?  Your word?  According to your word, you
couldn't find the article.  So what?  I had no trouble finding it.

> and your response is an insult.

It happens to be the truth, Mike, given your inability to find the
article.  If you find it insulting, that's your problem.  Perhaps
you should try a little harder to find referenced articles.

> I win this point, too.

Balderdash, Mike.

>>>>>> and Swing, for example.

>>>>> Swing was introduced before Java 2.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 12:10:12
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

>>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> indicates otherwise,
>>>> Mike.

>>> Then it's wrong.  More likely, your interpretation is wrong.

>> Actually, more likely is that you're ignoring a difference in Swing
>> between the two versions.

> From your excerpt, it's clear that your interpration is wrong.

Prove it, Mike.

> Nowhere in the text you've presented does IBM claim that Swing is
> a Java 2 feature.

Read the rest of the article, Mike.

>>>>> It is also not included as part of IBM's 1.1.8 JDK.

>>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>>>> Mike.

>>> Download the JDK from IBM's web site, Dave.  The classes aren't in it.

>> Wouldn't be the first time you couldn't find something that is there.

> Again, not even an attempt at proof from your side.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Mike?  I've provided plenty
of proof.

> I win this point as well.

Balderdash, Mike.

>>>>> Sorry, you're 0 for 4.

>>>> Incorrect, Mike.

>>> I'm quite correct, Dave.  I included references to official Sun web
>> sites, and quotes backing up my positions.

>> I've quoted IBM backing up my position, Mike.

> No, you haven't.

Exactly what do you think the article is, Mike?

> Your quote demonstrates that IBM intended JDK 1.1.8 to include
> "Java 2 security classes", and a number of other features that
> are unrelated to Java 2.

You're contradicting yourself once again, Mike.  In your other posting
in this thread today, you wrote:

MT] the version of Swing for JDK 1.2 requires features which IBM does
MT] not support in JDK 1.1.8.

Now, if the version of Swing for JDK 1.2 requires new features, then
they are related to Java 2.

Do make up your mind, Mike.

> You have presented nothing to back up your position that IBM considers
> RMI/IIOP, the COMM API, and Swing "Java 2 functionality."

I've presented a reference to the entire article, Mike.  I've also
presented your own statement:

MT] the version of Swing for JDK 1.2 requires features which IBM does
MT] not support in JDK 1.1.8.

> You have presented nothing to back up your position that JDK 1.1.8
> actually does include "Java 2 security classes".

I've presented the relevant quotation, Mike.  All you have presented
is an "I can't find it" argument, which doesn't prove anything.

>>> You had no response to those quotes.

>> Demonstrate their relevance, Mike.

> I already did, Dave.

Where?

> They prove that the items you refer to as "Java 2 functionalty" are
> not part of Java 2.

Since when are Java 2 security classes not part of Java 2, Mike?

> You should have read them before deleting them.

On what basis do you claim that I didn't read them, Mike?

>>>> Did you bother to even read the evidence I pointed you to?

>>> Couldn't find it with deja.com, Dave.

>> That's your problem, Mike.  Amazing how much you like to argue about
>> Java for OS/2, but how little you like to follow the news about it.

> I'm obviously more up to date on it than you are.

Oh really?  Have you actually run the product, Mike?

> I know what it actually includes.

On the contrary, you only know what you were able to find.  That
doesn't prove anything.  Note that you weren't able to find the
article.

> You know what IBM predicted it would include.

I know what IBM stated was included in the preview available the same
day, Mike.

> I have the actual JDK.

And on what platform have you run the JDK, Mike?

> You have a newsgroup article from before the JDK even shipped.

The preview was available for download the same day, Mike.

> I win.

Balderdash, Mike.

>>>>> It's say "nice try", but that was pretty pathetic.

>>>> Your so-called "logic" is pretty pathetic, Mike.

>>> My logic is backed up by facts and reality.  Your claims are incorrect.

>> How ironic, coming from someone making incorrect claims.

> Yet you could not demonstrate how even a single claim is incorrect.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Mike?  I suggest you
reread the above, where I demonstrate the contradictions of your
own claims.  They can't both be correct.

> You could not show that IBM's JDK 1.1.8 includes the items you claim
> it includes,

On the contrary, I pointed to an article written by IBM as evidence,
Mike.

> and you could not show that Java 2 includes the features
> you claim it does.

Since when are Java 2 security classes not in Java 2, Mike?

>>>>>>> You are, once again, arguing from a position of arrogant ignorance.

>>>>>> On the contrary, I am, once again, arguing from a position of knowledge
>>>>>> and logic.

>>>>> Then why are all of your answers wrong?

>>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

>>> The basis of knowing the facts.  That's why I included excerpts that
>>> proved my points.  And that's why you deleted those excerpts.

>> Incorrect, Mike.

> Quite correct.

Balderdash, Mike.

> You deleted the excerpts without comment.  Telling.

How ironic, coming from Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol, who deleted
text without comment.  Telling.

Now, let's recall something that you recently wrote:

MT] It supports *some* of it.  Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2.

What that means is that the entire argument boils down to whether
the phrase "implements Java 1.2 functionality" means "some" or "all"
of the Java 1.2 functionality.  The rest is merely evidence that you
like to argue for the sake of argument.  And as I've already noted,
if it meant "all", then logically IBM would have called it 1.2, thus
the only logical alternative is "some", to which you've admitted in
the quotation above.  Yet you objected to the phrase.  Ergo, your
objection can only be based on illogical reasons.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           22-Oct-99 08:23:13
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: Re: Giga says Win2k worth the money

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 07:11 AM,
   [e-mail] (Jerry McBride) said:

> t's amazing... Same MicroSoft party line, same MicroSoft bullshit that
> has been printed for win95/98 and winnt... "You guys" are never going to
> learn! $1000.00 bucks a seat... just to upgrade to another round of
> windows...

> You gotta' love this shit...

I never saw the original because McCoy who apparently posted it has long
resided in my killfile. He is a former OS/2 user who just didn't have the
technical knowhow to run it properly and found a home when someone
installed Windows 9x on his playtoy.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           22-Oct-99 08:24:28
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <SEQP3.680$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 03:14 AM,
   "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]> said:

> Maybe the fact that I've trippled my annual salary in the past 5 years
> will give you more ammo to call me a moron.  Didn't you know that the
> more you get paid, the less you are worth?  That kind of backward
> thinking seems to be your trademark.

Three more years and four more employers and you'll get to minimum wage!


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           22-Oct-99 08:27:10
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <7uoqnd$ka7$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 05:54 PM,
   "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]> said:

> > Then you admit it is yet another bug since the drivers were installed by
> > Windows, not from USR diskette.
> >
> Free clue asshole, MS don't develop the third party drivers.

Been standing upside down so long, the blood all rushed to your head?

Windows claims to recognize the modem and finds a driver on the
distribution CD. Now how can that be if MS doesn't provide the driver?


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                              22-Oct-99 12:58:27
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: "Chad Myers" <[e-mail]>

Illya Vaes <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...

> How'bout competing on quality of their products and using ethical means of
> doing business (IOW just 'competing')?

They tried that, but it doesn't work like that, see.
They won on merits with Netscape, they won on mertis with Novell (well,
actually Novell had incompitent marketing, but that's not MS' fault)

However, that doesn't always (usually doesn't) work like that all the
time in the real world.

Welcome to the real world... not everything is "fair"

Chad


>
> --
> Illya Vaes   ([e-mail])        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" -
Yoda
> Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
> Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
> Tel [phone], Fax [phone]           Not speaking for anyone but
myself


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 09:20:20
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
> >>>>   --Roberto Alsina
>
> >>> Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual would
> >>> do?
>
> >> Normal, well adjusted, relaxed individuals use quotations frequently,
> >> Marty.
>
> > More than 20 times in the same post
>
> That was the remainder, Marty.

Irrelevant.  Is it a normal thing to do to cut and paste the same thing
more than 20 times (be it in the "remainder" or not)?  Why not just
quote it once at the end of the "remainder"?

> > when it is not even an applicable quote?
>
> It's quite applicable, given that it was applied to the remainder, Marty.

Demonstrate the relevance of the quote in each situation it was applied.

> > Take a few deep breaths Dave...
>
> Unnecessary, Marty.

Ok.  Don't breathe at all then.

> Now, a question for you.  Is an "infantile game" something that a normal,
> well adjusted, relaxed individual would do?

Irrelevant, as no infantile game is being played here.  I am quite
seriously inquiring as to whether or not you have demonstrated that you
are a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual.  Note that this only
comes in response to your response to a song lyric.  Do you talk to your
radio Dave?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 09:23:20
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: Re: Rudolph The Rednose Hooters Here

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> And fistfucking is where I really draw the line (we tried it once, but
> all my girlfriend and I got were sore knuckles from rubbing our fists
> together. It didn't "do" much for us either. Maybe we did it wrong).

Too much info.  :-)

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 13:06:18
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7uoq98$g8l$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:

> >> Feel free to identify any incorrect memory of the
> >> thread, if you think you can.
>
> > You unwittingly used my "costly mistakes" reasoning in your argument
> > about the JDK statements.
>
> On the contrary, I didn't use any of your reasoning at all.

Yes, you did. Further proof that you don't understand the issue.

> For
> example, I never once mentioned X bar syntax when I described the
> illogic of assuming the statement meant "all" functionality.

Irrelevant, given that the reasoning you supplied regarding
quantification in the JDK sentence was congruent with mine in
the "costly mistakes" thread and not yours (using the framework to
describe the data would only prove you were wrong again).

> > Clearly, you've forgotten what your argument was
>
> Incorrect.

No, correct.

> My argument was based on the definition of the word
> "prevent",

And your argument was wrong and was proven to be so.

> and I've clearly not forgotten that.

You've clearly forgotten the substance of your own argument.

> > (and never understood mine).
>
> On the contrary, I understood what was (and still is) wrong with
> your argument, Lucien.

On the contrary, you never understood it (and still do not).

> > Evidence in full can be found in the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> Evidence for your failure to comprehend the definition of "prevent"
> can indeed be found in that thread.

Wrong. Proof to the contrary is in the thread.


> >>> Your argument was unwittingly illogical
>
> >> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.
>
> > The proof is in the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> Incorrect, given that there is nothing illogical about noting the
> definition of the word "prevent".

However, the illogic of your "costly mistakes" argument is proven in
detail in that thread.

> >>> and you lost the argument,
>
> >> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.
>
> > The proof is in the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> Impossible, given that I didn't lose that argument.

Quite possible, since you, in fact, suffered a grueling loss there.

> >>> as was plain to all involved.
>
> >> Who was involved, Lucien?  I'm asking to find out who you're
trying to
> >> speak for.
>
> > Translation: David wishes to deflect the attention of the reader
away
> > from his refusal to review the painful (for him) evidence of the
> > illogic of his arguments contained in the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> Yet another incorrect translation.  Meanwhile, I see you didn't answer
> my question.

Your question is an attempt to deflect attention away from the subject
at hand and is therefore irrelevant.

> >>>> You've not countered my arguments,
>
> >>> I have countered your arguments at length and with evidence.
>
> >> Where is this alleged evidence, Lucien?
>
> > The evidence is in the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> Impossible, given that you did not counter my arguments at length.

Wrong. I countered your illogical arguments at length.

> >>>> and my arguments are not uneducated
>
> >>> Your arguments are profoundly uninformed.
>
> >> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.
>
> > The proof, in full, is in the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> Impossible, given that my arguments included information about the
> definition of the word "prevent".

Your arguments were uninformed and wrong, and proven to be so.

> >>>> at all, Lucien.  Once again, all you're doing is pontificating.
>
> >>> Again the alleged pontification.
>
> >> It's not merely alleged, Lucien.  It's been identified repeatedly
> >> in this thread.
>
> > On the contrary, you've merely identified my countering of your
illogic
> > and irrelevancies.
>
> Without explanations for the alleged illogic and irrelevancies, which
> constitutes pontification.

Explanations can be found here and in the "costly mistakes" thread.


> >>>>> making no attempt to run or hide.
>
> >>>> Irrelevant, given that I indicated that you can run and can't
hide.
>
> >>> More completely irrelevant statements, the tools of the
ineffective
> >>> advocate.
>
> >> On the contrary, my statements are quite relevant to the statements
>
> > Your statements are irrelevant to your JDK statements,
>
> I was responding to your statements, Lucien, which they happen to
follow.

Yet, your responses are irrelevant to your argument concerning the JDK
statements.

> >> How ironic that you should refer to the tools
> >> of the ineffective advocate, given your use of pontification.
>
> > Illogical, given that the use of pontification has not been proven.
>
> Incorrect.  See above for the proof.

No, correct. No proof of pontification is provided.

> > Your illogic, however, has been repeatedly and painfully (for you)
> > proven.
>
> Where have you allegedly done that, Lucien?

In the "costly mistakes" thread.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                              22-Oct-99 13:29:27
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: "Chad Myers" <[e-mail]>

Eric Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...

> The FTC Commissioners deadlocked (2-2 as I recall) on whether or not to
> continue pursuing Microsoft.  That was in 1993.

> What is your source for this supposed 5-1 vote?

Wouldn't you know? The book I needed as at the BOTTOM of the
LAST box in the BACK of the closet... heh..

Anyhow...

The book "Gates" second edition by Stephen Manes and Paul Andrews
(a semi-unauthorized biography that focuses more on the bad
side of Bill Gates)

Page 463

"After failing in February 1993 to come to a decision about
bringing action against Microsoft for its trade practices,
the Federal Trade Commision on July 12 deadlocked twice 2-2,
first on whether to issue a formal complaint against Microsoft,
then on whether to abandon the investigation.  As in a similar
February vote on whether to seek a federal court injunction,
the fifth commissioner, Roscoe Starek, recused himself because
stock he had reportedly inherited, though tied up in a trust,
represented a potential conflict of interest. Microsoft was
quietly jubilant, but shortly thereafter, the FTC's
file were trucked over the the Justice Department, whose anti-
trust division under the Clinton appointee Anne Bingaman was
expected to be far tougher on anticompetitive practices than
the Bush administration had been.  Would the government,
Gates had to be wondering despite his bravado, become the same
long-time thorn in Microsoft's side that it had been in IBM's?
On August 20, the FTC voted 4-0 (not 5-1, sorry, my bad) to
abandon its investigation, but the Justice Department remained
on the case (hmmm...wonder why??)"

There you go.  The Justice decided to remain on the case despite
the FTC abandonning it's investigation.

Also note that the ComputerWorld article doesn't note the 4-0
victory... further lending credence to ComputerWorlds (and
possibly IDG's) hidden anti-MS tones (yes, I subscribe to
CW, and they frequently bash on MS. There's at least 2
anti-MS articles in every issue).

Chad


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 13:24:16
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7uopim$g8l$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>> On the contrary, I'm merely pointing out that your explanation is
> >>> wrong.
>
> >> You can't do that by pontificating, Lucien.
>
> > Again the alleged pontification.
>
> It's not alleged at all, Lucien.

Yes, it is only alleged.

> The lack of any supporting
> explanation demonstrates that you're only pontificating.

On the contrary, I'm merely countering your illogical remarks.

> > I'm merely countering your illogical explanation.
>
> What allegedly illogical explanation, Lucien?

See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for examples.

> >> given that there is no word analogous
> >> to "prevent" in the present situation.
>
> > Wrong. There is a direct analogy.
>
> Feel free to identify the allegedly analogous word, Lucien.

The entire sentence structure is what is analogous (not just one word).
Your failure to comprehend this is further proof that you do not
understand the issue.
Nevertheless, the reasoning behind the analogy can be discerned from
and a full proof can be found in the "costly mistakes" thread.

> I've
> asked you before, but you've yet to point it out.

See above. See the "costly mistakes" thread for the evidence.

> > The evidence is in the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> time of that thread.

Nevertheless, the analysis and proof would be the same.

> If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> a game, there should be no doubt now.

An alleged game - I'm merely pointing out your mistakes.

> >> Of course, I've told you that before.
>
> > And you've thereby unwittingly repeated your mistake.
>
> What alleged mistake, Lucien?

See above.

> > Translation: David can't find it there, because he cannot understand
> > the substance of the thread.
>
> Yet another incorrect translation.

The translation is correct.

> >> because it isn't there.
>
> > On the contrary, the evidence is there, in full detail.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

The proof, in full, can be found in the "costly mistakes" thread.

> >>>> You have yet to succeed, Lucien.
>
> >>> On the contrary, I did succeed in a manner that was very expensive
> >>> for you.
>
> >> A rather blatant lie.
>
> > A rather blatant statement of the truth:
>
> Incorrect.

No, it is correct.

> > that you were handed an unexpected and punishing defeat in a public
> > forum in front of your peers.
>
> What alleged "unexpected and punishing defeat", Lucien?

See the "costly mistakes" thread for a review of your defeat.

> How ironic,
> coming from someone dealt a punishing defeat.

Illogical, given that the loser was (and still is) you and not me.

Lucien S.



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          22-Oct-99 08:33:11
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 12:35:25
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Bob Germer posted :

> On <7uoqnd$ka7$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 05:54 PM,
>    "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > > Then you admit it is yet another bug since the drivers were installed by
> > > Windows, not from USR diskette.
> > >
> > Free clue asshole, MS don't develop the third party drivers.
>
> Been standing upside down so long, the blood all rushed to your head?
>
> Windows claims to recognize the modem and finds a driver on the
> distribution CD. Now how can that be if MS doesn't provide the driver?

MS provides a 3rd party driver.

--
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
         <remove _nospam_>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                           22-Oct-99 10:17:28
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 14:21:14
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 08:33 AM,
   Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:

> >
> > Windows claims to recognize the modem and finds a driver on the
> > distribution CD. Now how can that be if MS doesn't provide the driver?

> MS provides a 3rd party driver.

Which then proves it is a bug in Windows. Moreover it is proof of a total
disdain for their customers on the part of MS. If MS included a broken
driver, they become responsible for same. Once they put it on their CD
with their copyright, they become the responsible party.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 11:21:15
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 14:21:14
Subj: Re: Giga says Win2k worth the money

From: Brad BARCLAY <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>  Research conducted by Giga Information Group, an independent IT research
> advisory company based in Cambridge, Mass., concludes that the benefits of
> migrating to Windows 2000 outweigh its costs. Organizations deploying
Windows
> 2000 on new hardware
       ---------------

    Let's just make sure we underline that condition, in case you or anyone
else missed it.  Their conclusion as to cost/benifit is based entirely
on having new hardware to run it on.  If you have anything less than a
P2 with 128Mb of RAM on your corporate desktops, however, none of this
"analysis" applies.

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  [e-mail]        Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 18:46:13
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > For a change this time Dave actually explicitly showed how he recycled
> > this argument instead of pretending he writes new material.
>
> Where have I ever pretended either way, Marty?  Yet another unsubstantiated
> and erroneous claim.

Your postings are more than enough evidence to substantiate my claim.
Oh, but I forgot... that doesn't work for me, does it?  That only works
for you.

> > He's on the road to recovery.
>
> Typical invective.

That was positive reinforcement, not "invective".  Though it seems
you're not too used to such things.

> Meanwhile, you're continuing your "infantile game",

What alleged infantile game, Dave?  What are its rules?  Am I following
them?  How many points have I earned?

> following me around into different threads like a puppy,

Firstly, I have yet to see a puppy follow you around to different
threads.  Secondly, I was following the thread, not you.  Thirdly, your
behaviors in the past have come across the same way, such as your
hounding and pestering of Brad Wardell from one thread to another.

> and Lucien is also obviously playing a game, as the evidence below clearly
> demonstrates.

Obvious to who Dave?  You?  Please present this "obvious evidence" of
Lucien playing a game.  Your "evidence" below does not support this
statement.

> >> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>>>>> On the contrary, I'm merely pointing out that your explanation is
> >>>>>>> wrong.
>
> >>>>>> You can't do that by pontificating, Lucien.
>
> >>>>> Again the alleged pontification.
>
> >>>> It's not alleged at all, Lucien.
>
> >>> Yes, it is only alleged.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
> >> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>
> >> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
> >> LS] mistakes" thread.
> >>
> >> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> >> DT] time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> >> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>>> The lack of any supporting
> >>>> explanation demonstrates that you're only pontificating.
>
> >>> On the contrary, I'm merely countering your illogical remarks.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
> >> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>
> >> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
> >> LS] mistakes" thread.
> >>
> >> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> >> DT] time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> >> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>>>> I'm merely countering your illogical explanation.
>
> >>>> What allegedly illogical explanation, Lucien?
>
> >>> See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for examples.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
> >> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>
> >> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
> >> LS] mistakes" thread.
> >>
> >> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> >> DT] time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> >> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>>>>> given that there is no word analogous
> >>>>>> to "prevent" in the present situation.
>
> >>>>> Wrong. There is a direct analogy.
>
> >>>> Feel free to identify the allegedly analogous word, Lucien.
>
> >>> The entire sentence structure is what is analogous (not just one word).
> >>> Your failure to comprehend this is further proof that you do not
> >>> understand the issue.
> >>> Nevertheless, the reasoning behind the analogy can be discerned from
> >>> and a full proof can be found in the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
> >> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>
> >> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
> >> LS] mistakes" thread.
> >>
> >> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> >> DT] time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> >> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>>> I've
> >>>> asked you before, but you've yet to point it out.
>
> >>> See above. See the "costly mistakes" thread for the evidence.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
> >> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>
> >> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
> >> LS] mistakes" thread.
> >>
> >> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> >> DT] time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> >> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>>>> The evidence is in the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> >>>> Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> >>>> time of that thread.
>
> >>> Nevertheless, the analysis and proof would be the same.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
> >> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>
> >> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
> >> LS] mistakes" thread.
> >>
> >> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> >> DT] time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> >> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>>> If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> >>>> a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>> An alleged game - I'm merely pointing out your mistakes.
>
> >> On the contrary, you've been making mistakes of your own.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
> >> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>
> >> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
> >> LS] mistakes" thread.
> >>
> >> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> >> DT] time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> >> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>>>>> Of course, I've told you that before.
>
> >>>>> And you've thereby unwittingly repeated your mistake.
>
> >>>> What alleged mistake, Lucien?
>
> >>> See above.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
> >> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>
> >> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
> >> LS] mistakes" thread.
> >>
> >> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> >> DT] time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> >> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>>>> Translation: David can't find it there, because he cannot understand
> >>>>> the substance of the thread.
>
> >>>> Yet another incorrect translation.
>
> >>> The translation is correct.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
> >> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>
> >> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
> >> LS] mistakes" thread.
> >>
> >> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> >> DT] time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> >> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>>>>> because it isn't there.
>
> >>>>> On the contrary, the evidence is there, in full detail.
>
> >>>> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.
>
> >>> The proof, in full, can be found in the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
> >> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>
> >> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
> >> LS] mistakes" thread.
> >>
> >> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> >> DT] time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> >> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>>>>>>> You have yet to succeed, Lucien.
>
> >>>>>>> On the contrary, I did succeed in a manner that was very expensive
> >>>>>>> for you.
>
> >>>>>> A rather blatant lie.
>
> >>>>> A rather blatant statement of the truth:
>
> >>>> Incorrect.
>
> >>> No, it is correct.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
> >> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>
> >> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
> >> LS] mistakes" thread.
> >>
> >> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> >> DT] time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> >> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>>>> that you were handed an unexpected and punishing defeat in a public
> >>>>> forum in front of your peers.
>
> >>>> What alleged "unexpected and punishing defeat", Lucien?
>
> >>> See the "costly mistakes" thread for a review of your defeat.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
> >> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>
> >> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
> >> LS] mistakes" thread.
> >>
> >> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> >> DT] time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> >> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>>> How ironic,
> >>>> coming from someone dealt a punishing defeat.
>
> >>> Illogical, given that the loser was (and still is) you and not me.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
> >> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>
> >> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
> >> LS] mistakes" thread.
> >>
> >> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
> >> DT] time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
> >> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            22-Oct-99 22:45:20
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Rudolph The Rednose Hooters Here

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 13:23:41, Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Karel Jansens wrote:
> >
> > And fistfucking is where I really draw the line (we tried it once, but
> > all my girlfriend and I got were sore knuckles from rubbing our fists
> > together. It didn't "do" much for us either. Maybe we did it wrong).
>
> Too much info.  :-)
>
Hah! Wait 'til you get a load of my *real* web page (there's a pun in
there, but I don't wanna know about it).

:^) , just in case...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

|---------------------------------------------------|
|            <undefined O/S> boot options           |
|                                                   |
|               Please choose from list             |
|                                                   |
|       <crash>         <OS/2>        <linux>       |
|---------------------------------------------------|

NT-vocates made trouble, so here's the first P. C. sig-line.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 18:50:05
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
> >>>>>>   --Roberto Alsina
>
> >>>>> Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
would
> >>>>> do?
>
> >>>> Normal, well adjusted, relaxed individuals use quotations frequently,
> >>>> Marty.
>
> >>> More than 20 times in the same post
>
> >> That was the remainder, Marty.
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty.

' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina'
  -- Dave Tholen

> > Is it a normal thing to do to cut and paste the same thing
> > more than 20 times (be it in the "remainder" or not)?
>
> In this particular instance, absolutely.  Whether it is in other
> situations depends on the circumstances, Marty.

' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina'
  -- Dave Tholen

> > Why not just quote it once at the end of the "remainder"?
>
> There wasn't just a single item to which to respond, Marty.

' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina'
  -- Dave Tholen

> >>> when it is not even an applicable quote?
>
> >> It's quite applicable, given that it was applied to the remainder, Marty.
>
> > Demonstrate the relevance of the quote in each situation it was applied.
>
> Each was part of the remainder, Marty.

' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina'
  -- Dave Tholen

> >>> Take a few deep breaths Dave...
>
> >> Unnecessary, Marty.
>
> > Ok.  Don't breathe at all then.
>
> Illogical, Marty.

' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina'
  -- Dave Tholen

> >> Now, a question for you.  Is an "infantile game" something that a normal,
> >> well adjusted, relaxed individual would do?
>
> > Irrelevant,
>
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty.

' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina'
  -- Dave Tholen

> > as no infantile game is being played here.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.  You are obviously back to playing your "infantile
> game".

' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina'
  -- Dave Tholen

> > I am quite seriously inquiring as to whether or not you have demonstrated
> > that you are a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual.
>
> With song lyrics?  Yeah, right.  Meanwhile, your alleged killfile is
> still not working as intended, and I'm quite seriously inquiring as to
> whether that problem is really yours, not the software's.

' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina'
  -- Dave Tholen

> > Note that this only comes in response to your response to a song lyric.
>
> I'm still waiting for the evidence that every line was responded to,
> Marty.

' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina'
  -- Dave Tholen

> > Do you talk to your radio Dave?
>
> Non sequitur.  Or are claiming that you're a radio, Marty?

' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
   --Roberto Alsina'
  -- Dave Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                 22-Oct-99 22:39:14
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol wrote:
>>
>> I'll just reply to both articles here, to avoid too much repetition...
>
>> >> Incorrect.  I disagreed with the statement that "JDK 1.1.8 implements
>> >> JDK 1.2 functionality."
>> >
>> >Logically, the statements mean the same thing, Mike, given that if all
>> >the functionality was implemented, then it would have been called 1.2.
>> >You've admitted that some has been implemented, thus Java 1.2
>> >functionality has indeed been implemented.
>>
>> Incorrect; "Java 1.2 functionality" refers to the sum of features of
>> Java 1.2.  IBM stated "Selected functions from Sun's Java 2 technology
>> are being added...", which is quite different from your claim of
>> "implements JDK 1.2 functionality".
>>
>> Once again, all you're doing is restating your argument, not adding any
>> substance.
>
>What I wrote needed no explanation since it is correct in its context.
>
>You edited my post and changed its meaning into an absurd comment that
>IBM's implementation of JDK 1.1.8 on OS/2 was equal to Sun's JDK 1.2.
>Why?   At best you made a mistake.

I made no mistake; your point of your post was that version numbers cannot
be used to judge functionality.  To support that point you claimed that
Navigator 2.02 implementd the functionality of Navigator 3.0.  That's
basically true.  You claimed the same thing with regard to JDK 1.1.8
and JDK 1.2.  That's basically false.

You're implying that JDK 1.1.8 is somehow superior to JDK 1.1.8 on
other platforms, and should not be judged by its version number.  Heh.

>We all do make mistakes when we read
>and reply, but I fear the worse.  It was done intentionally by Mike
>Timbol so Mike Timbol can come to the rescue with his technical
>knowledge of Java.

"Come to the rescue"?  Of who?  Of what?

What you're leaving out, of course, is that it's Dave Tholen that started
spewing forth all sorts of crap about what he thinks IBM meant.  I was
merely correcting him.  Is it my fault that he doesn't know what he's
talking about?  No, it isn't.

     - Mike




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         22-Oct-99 22:46:29
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> For a change this time Dave actually explicitly showed how he recycled
>>> this argument instead of pretending he writes new material.

>> Where have I ever pretended either way, Marty?  Yet another unsubstantiated
>> and erroneous claim.

> Your postings are more than enough evidence to substantiate my claim.

Balderdash, Marty.  My posting don't allow you to conclude that I was
pretending.

> Oh, but I forgot... that doesn't work for me, does it?

No, it doesn't.

> That only works for you.

Where have I concluded that you're pretending, Marty?

>>> He's on the road to recovery.

>> Typical invective.

> That was positive reinforcement, not "invective".

Incorrect, Marty.

> Though it seems you're not too used to such things.

On the contrary, I'm quite accustomed to invective.

>> Meanwhile, you're continuing your "infantile game",

> What alleged infantile game, Dave?

The one you're playing, Marty.

> What are its rules?

You tell me, Marty.  It's your game.

> Am I following them?

You tell me, Marty.  It's your game.

> How many points have I earned?

You tell me, Marty.  It's your game.

>> following me around into different threads like a puppy,

> Firstly, I have yet to see a puppy follow you around to different
> threads.

I see you also have trouble with analogies.

> Secondly, I was following the thread, not you.

Then why are your responses in this thread restricted to me, Marty?

> Thirdly, your behaviors in the past have come across the same way, such
> as your hounding and pestering of Brad Wardell from one thread to another.

Incorrect.  I didn't follow him around, Marty.

>> and Lucien is also obviously playing a game, as the evidence below clearly
>> demonstrates.

> Obvious to who Dave?

Anyone who reads the evidence, Marty.

> You?

See above, Marty.

> Please present this "obvious evidence" of Lucien playing a game.

I already have, Marty.

> Your "evidence" below does not support this statement.

Balderdash, Marty.  Or do you believe in time warps?

>>>> Lucien writes:

>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, I'm merely pointing out that your explanation is
>>>>>>>>> wrong.

>>>>>>>> You can't do that by pontificating, Lucien.

>>>>>>> Again the alleged pontification.

>>>>>> It's not alleged at all, Lucien.

>>>>> Yes, it is only alleged.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
>>>> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
>>>> LS] mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
>>>> DT] time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
>>>> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>>> The lack of any supporting
>>>>>> explanation demonstrates that you're only pontificating.

>>>>> On the contrary, I'm merely countering your illogical remarks.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
>>>> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
>>>> LS] mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
>>>> DT] time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
>>>> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>>>> I'm merely countering your illogical explanation.

>>>>>> What allegedly illogical explanation, Lucien?

>>>>> See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for examples.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
>>>> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
>>>> LS] mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
>>>> DT] time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
>>>> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>>>>> given that there is no word analogous
>>>>>>>> to "prevent" in the present situation.

>>>>>>> Wrong. There is a direct analogy.

>>>>>> Feel free to identify the allegedly analogous word, Lucien.

>>>>> The entire sentence structure is what is analogous (not just one word).
>>>>> Your failure to comprehend this is further proof that you do not
>>>>> understand the issue.
>>>>> Nevertheless, the reasoning behind the analogy can be discerned from
>>>>> and a full proof can be found in the "costly mistakes" thread.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
>>>> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
>>>> LS] mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
>>>> DT] time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
>>>> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>>> I've
>>>>>> asked you before, but you've yet to point it out.

>>>>> See above. See the "costly mistakes" thread for the evidence.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
>>>> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
>>>> LS] mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
>>>> DT] time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
>>>> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>>>> The evidence is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

>>>>>> Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
>>>>>> time of that thread.

>>>>> Nevertheless, the analysis and proof would be the same.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
>>>> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
>>>> LS] mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
>>>> DT] time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
>>>> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>>> If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
>>>>>> a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>> An alleged game - I'm merely pointing out your mistakes.

>>>> On the contrary, you've been making mistakes of your own.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
>>>> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
>>>> LS] mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
>>>> DT] time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
>>>> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>>>>> Of course, I've told you that before.

>>>>>>> And you've thereby unwittingly repeated your mistake.

>>>>>> What alleged mistake, Lucien?

>>>>> See above.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
>>>> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
>>>> LS] mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
>>>> DT] time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
>>>> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>>>> Translation: David can't find it there, because he cannot understand
>>>>>>> the substance of the thread.

>>>>>> Yet another incorrect translation.

>>>>> The translation is correct.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
>>>> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
>>>> LS] mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
>>>> DT] time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
>>>> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>>>>> because it isn't there.

>>>>>>> On the contrary, the evidence is there, in full detail.

>>>>>> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

>>>>> The proof, in full, can be found in the "costly mistakes" thread.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
>>>> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
>>>> LS] mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
>>>> DT] time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
>>>> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to succeed, Lucien.

>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, I did succeed in a manner that was very expensive
>>>>>>>>> for you.

>>>>>>>> A rather blatant lie.

>>>>>>> A rather blatant statement of the truth:

>>>>>> Incorrect.

>>>>> No, it is correct.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
>>>> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
>>>> LS] mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
>>>> DT] time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
>>>> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>>>> that you were handed an unexpected and punishing defeat in a public
>>>>>>> forum in front of your peers.

>>>>>> What alleged "unexpected and punishing defeat", Lucien?

>>>>> See the "costly mistakes" thread for a review of your defeat.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
>>>> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
>>>> LS] mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
>>>> DT] time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
>>>> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>>> How ironic,
>>>>>> coming from someone dealt a punishing defeat.

>>>>> Illogical, given that the loser was (and still is) you and not me.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word analogous
>>>> DT] to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in the "costly
>>>> LS] mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred at the
>>>> DT] time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been playing
>>>> DT] a game, there should be no doubt now.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 18:59:29
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Marty writes [to Roberto Alsina]:
>
> > There's only one problem with what you've said.  In order to diminish
> > credibility, some had to exist in the first place.  The only way to earn
> > credibility is by discussing real issues and demonstrating knowledge and
> > skill.  Dave has not done such a thing,
>
> Incorrect, Marty.  You just lied, so you can also be dismissed.

So then dismiss me Dave.  I won't cry.

Please point out where you have discussed a real issue and demonstrated
knowledge and skill.  I may have missed it.  Go ahead.  I'm willing to
keep an open mind.

> > and therefore has no credibility to begin with.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I've never discussed real issues
> and demonstrated knowledge and skill, Marty.

You have yet to show such a case that proves my statement wrong.  When
you have, I'll retract.

> > Dave just dispenses logic nuggets from his logical Pez dispenser
> > independent of issues and knowledge.
>
> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

That's you're "style" of argumentation.  Isolate each statement and test
it, removing all context and common sense from consideration.  Your
postings are ample evidence to substantiate my claim.

> > This activity does not and can not earn credibility.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I have engaged in such an
> activity independent of issues and knowledge, Marty.

Incorrect.  See above.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            22-Oct-99 23:02:14
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 13:56:42, "Kim Cheung"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 14:27:44 -0400, Drestin Black wrote:
>
> >Deal! - show us a WHOLE room of computers that will corrupt the registry by
> >just installing a CDROM. I would love to see this. Where are you located. I
> >think Chad and I would love to fly in and see this. But, if it doesn't do
as
> >you claim, you'll reemburse us the airfare right?
>
> Here, I will make it more interesting for all those that think Windows is so
> great and so secure.    Let's both go to Bob's place.   You take half of the
> computers in that room and set it up the "right" way to run Windows - any
> version: 95, 98, 99, 2000, 2005, whatever.   I'll take the other half of the
> machines and set it up to run OS/2 (2.1, 3.0, 4.0, whatever).   Then give me
> 10 minutes to use your machines and I will give you 10 minutes to use my.
> After that, we will start a timer.    You go back to your Windows machines
> and fix all those machines that doesn't boot and I will fix my.   For each
> minute pass we pay each other 1000 buck until all of the machines run normal
> again.   In other words, if it takes you 10 minutes to fix all of your
> machines, you pay me 10K.   Likewise, if it takes me 30 minutes to fix all
of
> my machines, I pay you 30K.   Simple enough?
>
> We will execute a legal binding contract and have money up front in escrow -
> let say $50K.
>
> Here's a chance for you to proof how secure Windows really is and put a stop
> to all these meaningless name calling.
>
> p.s. Don't worry, I don't use Windows much: I know nothing about NT, I know
> nothing about registry.   I shouldn't be that much of a threat to you.   And
> no: I am very professional.  I wouldn't do some physical harm to the
> machines.  That would be cheap shot.
>
>
>
I think that'll be the last you've heard of Mr "Drestin Black". He'll
probably claim he has to do his laundry.

Just out of curiosity: do you get 10 minutes per machine, or 10
minutes in total, to fuzz them up? I mean, it could be a really *big*
room...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

|---------------------------------------------------|
|            <undefined O/S> boot options           |
|                                                   |
|               Please choose from list             |
|                                                   |
|       <crash>         <OS/2>        <linux>       |
|---------------------------------------------------|

NT-vocates made trouble, so here's the first P. C. sig-line.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         22-Oct-99 22:57:25
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

Why are you trying to attribute Roberto's quotation to both of us, Marty?

>>>>>>>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>>>>>>>>   --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>>> Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
would
>>>>>>> do?

>>>>>> Normal, well adjusted, relaxed individuals use quotations frequently,
>>>>>> Marty.

>>>>> More than 20 times in the same post

>>>> That was the remainder, Marty.

>>> Irrelevant.

>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty.

> ' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>    --Roberto Alsina'
>   -- Dave Tholen

"Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
would do?"
   --Marty

>>> Is it a normal thing to do to cut and paste the same thing
>>> more than 20 times (be it in the "remainder" or not)?

>> In this particular instance, absolutely.  Whether it is in other
>> situations depends on the circumstances, Marty.

> ' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>    --Roberto Alsina'
>   -- Dave Tholen

"Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
would do?"
   --Marty

>>> Why not just quote it once at the end of the "remainder"?

>> There wasn't just a single item to which to respond, Marty.

> ' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>    --Roberto Alsina'
>   -- Dave Tholen

"Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
would do?"
   --Marty

>>>>> when it is not even an applicable quote?

>>>> It's quite applicable, given that it was applied to the remainder, Marty.

>>> Demonstrate the relevance of the quote in each situation it was applied.

>> Each was part of the remainder, Marty.

> ' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>    --Roberto Alsina'
>   -- Dave Tholen

"Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
would do?"
   --Marty

>>>>> Take a few deep breaths Dave...

>>>> Unnecessary, Marty.

>>> Ok.  Don't breathe at all then.

>> Illogical, Marty.

> ' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>    --Roberto Alsina'
>   -- Dave Tholen

"Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
would do?"
   --Marty

>>>> Now, a question for you.  Is an "infantile game" something that a normal,
>>>> well adjusted, relaxed individual would do?

>>> Irrelevant,

>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty.

> ' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>    --Roberto Alsina'
>   -- Dave Tholen

"Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
would do?"
   --Marty

>>> as no infantile game is being played here.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  You are obviously back to playing your "infantile
>> game".

> ' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>    --Roberto Alsina'
>   -- Dave Tholen

"Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
would do?"
   --Marty

>>> I am quite seriously inquiring as to whether or not you have demonstrated
>>> that you are a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual.

>> With song lyrics?  Yeah, right.  Meanwhile, your alleged killfile is
>> still not working as intended, and I'm quite seriously inquiring as to
>> whether that problem is really yours, not the software's.

> ' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>    --Roberto Alsina'
>   -- Dave Tholen

"Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
would do?"
   --Marty

>>> Note that this only comes in response to your response to a song lyric.

>> I'm still waiting for the evidence that every line was responded to,
>> Marty.

> ' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>    --Roberto Alsina'
>   -- Dave Tholen

"Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
would do?"
   --Marty

>>> Do you talk to your radio Dave?

>> Non sequitur.  Or are claiming that you're a radio, Marty?

> ' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>    --Roberto Alsina'
>   -- Dave Tholen

"Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
would do?"
   --Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         22-Oct-99 22:54:26
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:

> I made no mistake;

Incorrect, Mike.  You claimed that Joseph's statement is wrong.  It is
not.  You've admitted that some 1.2 functionality is in 1.1.8, thus he
isn't wrong.

> You're implying that JDK 1.1.8 is somehow superior to JDK 1.1.8 on
> other platforms,

Yet another person who doesn't understand the difference between
inference and implication.  Just because you inferred it does not
mean that Joseph implied it, Mike.  Nevertheless, any JDK 1.1.8
that does not implement 1.2 functionality does offer less than a
JDK 1.1.8 that does implement 1.2 functionality.

> What you're leaving out, of course, is that it's Dave Tholen that started
> spewing forth all sorts of crap about what he thinks IBM meant.

Incorrect, Mike.  I did one thing:  I countered your claim that Joseph
is wrong.  The rest is merely your attempt to divert attention away
from that issue.

> I was merely correcting him.

Impossible, given that you're the one who is wrong, Mike.

> Is it my fault that he doesn't know what he's talking about?

You're erroneously presupposing that I don't know what I'm talking
about, Mike.

> No, it isn't.

It's your fault for claiming that Joseph is wrong, Mike.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                         22-Oct-99 23:02:24
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> Marty writes [to Roberto Alsina]:

>>> There's only one problem with what you've said.  In order to diminish
>>> credibility, some had to exist in the first place.  The only way to earn
>>> credibility is by discussing real issues and demonstrating knowledge and
>>> skill.  Dave has not done such a thing,

>> Incorrect, Marty.  You just lied, so you can also be dismissed.

> So then dismiss me Dave.

I did that long ago, Marty.

> I won't cry.

Irrelevant, Marty.

> Please point out where you have discussed a real issue and demonstrated
> knowledge and skill.

You made the claim that I haven't, Marty, therefore the burden of proof
falls on your shoulders, not mine.

> I may have missed it.

Obviously.

> Go ahead.  I'm willing to keep an open mind.

Then admit that I'm innocent of your charges until you can prove me
guilty.

>>> and therefore has no credibility to begin with.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I've never discussed real issues
>> and demonstrated knowledge and skill, Marty.

> You have yet to show such a case that proves my statement wrong.

So much for your allegedly open mind.

> When you have, I'll retract.

That's not how an open mind words, Marty.

>>> Dave just dispenses logic nuggets from his logical Pez dispenser
>>> independent of issues and knowledge.

>> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> That's you're "style" of argumentation.

Pointing out your unsubstantiated and erroneous claims is a way of
noting your "style" of argumentation, Marty.

> Isolate each statement and test it, removing all context and common
> sense from consideration.

Incorrect, Marty.  No context or common sense was removed.  Of course,
that doesn't mean any common sense was present in your remarks in the
first place.

> Your postings are ample evidence to substantiate my claim.

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>>> This activity does not and can not earn credibility.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I have engaged in such an
>> activity independent of issues and knowledge, Marty.

> Incorrect.  See above.

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                   22-Oct-99 15:50:12
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: [e-mail] (Tim Smith)

Bob Germer  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I own my own company which supports over 10,000 desktops in large and
>small corporations. We support various flavors of UNIX including RedHat,
>ATT, SCO, NT, OS/2, AS/400, Novell, and Windows. The number of problems
>software related calls with Windows is exponentially larger than all other
>OS's combined. In the past 4 years, our calls per WIN 9x client have been
>between 6 and 16 times higher than any other OS.

What does it mean for a number to be "exponentially larger" than another
number?

--Tim Smith
--
--Tim Smith
 +----G----D--------G---D-----G-----D----------Em---A7------+-Cat Stevens--+
 |And if I ever lose my eyes, if my colour all runs dry...   \"Moonshadow"/|
 |yes if I ever lose my eyes, oh if..........., I won't have to cry no more|
 +----G----D--------G---D--------Em-A7-D-F#m-Bm---Em------------A------D---+

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Archimedes Plutonium Grepping Society (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 19:22:14
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>> For a change this time Dave actually explicitly showed how he recycled
> >>> this argument instead of pretending he writes new material.
>
> >> Where have I ever pretended either way, Marty?  Yet another
unsubstantiated
> >> and erroneous claim.
>
> > Your postings are more than enough evidence to substantiate my claim.
>
> Balderdash, Marty.  My posting don't allow you to conclude that I was
> pretending.

No, but your *postings* do.  Are you telling me what I'm allowed to
conclude and what I'm not?  Funny, but last time I looked, you had no
authority over me.

> > Oh, but I forgot... that doesn't work for me, does it?
>
> No, it doesn't.

Again the blatent double-standard.

> > That only works for you.
>
> Where have I concluded that you're pretending, Marty?

Having trouble recognizing that this statement was generalized?  I'm not
surprised.

> >>> He's on the road to recovery.
>
> >> Typical invective.
>
> > That was positive reinforcement, not "invective".
>
> Incorrect, Marty.

So you know profess to know the intention of my statements better than
I.  How arrogant.

> > Though it seems you're not too used to such things.
>
> On the contrary, I'm quite accustomed to invective.

Irrelevent, given that invective was not being discussed in my
statement.

> >> Meanwhile, you're continuing your "infantile game",
>
> > What alleged infantile game, Dave?
>
> The one you're playing, Marty.

Prove it, if you think you can.  You're the one claiming it exists.  You
then tell me I'm playing it and tell me that I should know the rules and
how many points I've earned.  How can I, seeing as how it is all in your
head?

> >> following me around into different threads like a puppy,
>
> > Firstly, I have yet to see a puppy follow you around to different
> > threads.
>
> I see you also have trouble with analogies.

How ironic, coming from the person who interprets each statement
individually, isolated from common sense, and staunchly literally when
it suits him.  The evidence you are about to request is above, but I'll
reproduce it here:
DT] "Where have I concluded that you're pretending, Marty?"
M ] "Having trouble recognizing that this statement was generalized?
I'm not surprised."

> > Secondly, I was following the thread, not you.
>
> Then why are your responses in this thread restricted to me, Marty?

Because you're the only person making erroneous statements.

> > Thirdly, your behaviors in the past have come across the same way, such
> > as your hounding and pestering of Brad Wardell from one thread to another.
>
> Incorrect.  I didn't follow him around, Marty.

Then I'm not following you around, Dave.

> >> and Lucien is also obviously playing a game, as the evidence below
clearly
> >> demonstrates.
>
> > Obvious to who Dave?  You?
>
> Anyone who reads the evidence, Marty.

Incorrect.  I have read the "evidence" and it is not obvious to me.
Seeing as how I qualify as "anyone" you just lied and can be dismissed.

> > Please present this "obvious evidence" of Lucien playing a game.
>
> I already have, Marty.

Now demonstrate why it is evidence, followed by why it is obvious.  The
very fact that you'd need to demonstrate why it's obvious proves that it
is not.

> > Your "evidence" below does not support this statement.
>
> Balderdash, Marty.  Or do you believe in time warps?

Taking a stab at absurd irrelevancies?  You sure nailed that one.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 17:36:19
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Giga says Win2k worth the money

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

Let's wait and see.

As you recall, OS/2 v2, v3, and v4 were hyped up for great reasons of their
own.

Those reasons also proved to be not entirely true and/or realistic.

David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> Giga report: Benefits of Windows 2000 outweigh deployment costs
>
> Companies will be able to recover the costs of deploying Windows 2000
within
> approximately 6 to 12 month, report finds
> Redmond, WA-Nothing good comes for free, but with Microsoft« Windows« 2000
> companies can get a lot for their investment.
>
>  Research conducted by Giga Information Group, an independent IT research
> advisory company based in Cambridge, Mass., concludes that the benefits of
> migrating to Windows 2000 outweigh its costs. Organizations deploying
Windows
> 2000 on new hardware will see economic returns resulting from significant
> improvements in reliability, performance and stability, the study found,
and
> companies will be able to recover their initial costs within approximately
6 to
> 12 months.
> Giga's conclusion: The benefits can make deploying Windows 2000 a win-win
> solution for most companies.
>
> "This report paints a realistic picture of the costs of deploying Windows
> 2000," said Keith White, director of public relations of the Business and
> Enterprise Division at Microsoft. "While there will always be a cost in
> deploying any new software, the increased performance, reliability and
> scalability of the Windows 2000 platform outweigh those costs and give
> companies compelling reasons to upgrade to Windows 2000. The report also
> substantiates what we've been hearing from the hundreds of companies that
have
> already deployed Windows 2000."
>
> Giga based its study on the total economic impact (TEI) of adopting a new
> operating system. The approach determines the dollar costs of adopting the
> products, including the cost of purchasing software, hardware and training
> employees, and compares those costs to the impact of the new technology on
> operations, such as management and productivity.
>
> TEI gives companies an accurate picture of how purchasing new technology
will
> affect their bottom line.
>
> The study found that upgrading to Windows 2000 Professional will cost
> approximately $970 to $1,640 per desktop, and upgrading to Windows 2000
Server
> will cost about $107 per client in a network of 5,000 users. For an
enterprise
> with 5,000 users, the total expected cost of upgrading to Windows 2000
> Professional and Server would cost approximately $1,077 to $1,747 per user
even
> if an organization replaces all of its desktop hardware.
>
> Those costs will be offset by the savings related to the new operating
system
> within about 6 to 12 months, according to Giga's research. Savings could
come
> from increased productivity, fewer administrators needed to manage a
network
> and reduced training time.
>
>  On the client side, the report found, companies will get a solid desktop
> platform and a standardized interface that is less expensive to support.
In
> addition, they should not need to upgrade desktop hardware for at least
two
> years. The report also found that on the server side, companies will get
> improved performance, the option to consolidate their servers and improved
> ability to handle data intensive applications such as e-commerce, Web
hosting
> and constructing corporate intranets.
>
> The report concludes that these benefits are a compelling reason for
companies
> to move to Windows 2000.
>
> The report's findings jibe with the experiences of the more than 100
business
> customers that have already deployed beta versions of Windows 2000. These
early
> adopters say the operating system is reliable, robust and easy to use.
Some are
> already using the Active DirectoryT services and remote management
features in
> Windows 2000 to reduce costs.
>
> There are several other ways Windows 2000 can benefit companies.
>
> Microsoft designed Windows 2000 from the ground up to be its most reliable
and
> manageable operating system platform to date.
>
> Windows 2000 Professional, created for businesses of all sizes, is
designed to
> be the easiest-to-use desktop operating system yet, and includes
significant
> enhancements for mobile users. It's designed to provide
industrial-strength
> reliability and help companies further lower their total cost of ownership
with
> improved manageability.
>
> Windows 2000 Server is designed to be the ideal solution for small to
medium-
> sized enterprise application deployments, Web servers, workgroups and
branch
> offices. Windows 2000 Advanced Server, the server operating system for
> business-critical applications, extends these capabilities and is designed
for
> database-intensive work and integrates clustering and load-balancing
support to
> improve system and application availability.
>
> And that gives any company a way to benefit from Windows 2000.
>
>
>
> Well, for all you people(like Joseph) who side with Giga earlier, let's
see how
> you like them apples, ya hurtins.
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------
> David H. McCoy
> dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> ---------------------------------------


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 19:28:23
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> Why are you trying to attribute Roberto's quotation to both of us, Marty?

I wasn't attributing his quote to you.  I was quoting your act of
quoting him.  You'll note that I left the attribution to him intact.

> >>>>>>>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
> >>>>>>>>   --Roberto Alsina
>
> >>>>>>> Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
would
> >>>>>>> do?
>
> >>>>>> Normal, well adjusted, relaxed individuals use quotations frequently,
> >>>>>> Marty.
>
> >>>>> More than 20 times in the same post
>
> >>>> That was the remainder, Marty.
>
> >>> Irrelevant.
>
> >> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty.
>
> > ' "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
> >    --Roberto Alsina'
> >   -- Dave Tholen
>
> "Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
> would do?"
>    --Marty

Glad you agree, Dave.

Having proved my point, I have eliminated the repetition.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 19:37:21
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >> Marty writes [to Roberto Alsina]:
>
> >>> There's only one problem with what you've said.  In order to diminish
> >>> credibility, some had to exist in the first place.  The only way to earn
> >>> credibility is by discussing real issues and demonstrating knowledge and
> >>> skill.  Dave has not done such a thing,
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.  You just lied, so you can also be dismissed.
>
> > So then dismiss me Dave.
>
> I did that long ago, Marty.

Apparently not, as you seem to feel the need to correct me all the
time.  Your actions are once again in conflict with your words.

> > Please point out where you have discussed a real issue and demonstrated
> > knowledge and skill.
>
> You made the claim that I haven't, Marty, therefore the burden of proof
> falls on your shoulders, not mine.

If you had nothing to hide, such a simple piece of evidence to gather
would be no sweat and would quell a detractor.  I've already sited your
postings as my evidence.  Present yours or accept my statement.

> > I may have missed it.
>
> Obviously.

So present it to me then.

> > Go ahead.  I'm willing to keep an open mind.
>
> Then admit that I'm innocent of your charges until you can prove me
> guilty.

Then what will your motivation be to present the evidence?

> >>> and therefore has no credibility to begin with.
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I've never discussed real issues
> >> and demonstrated knowledge and skill, Marty.
>
> > You have yet to show such a case that proves my statement wrong.
>
> So much for your allegedly open mind.

How is this evidence of a closed mind?  I'm stating my observations.
Your flat rejection of them and admittance that you have dismissed me
long ago is conclusive evidence of your closed mind, however.

> > When you have, I'll retract.
>
> That's not how an open mind wor[k]s, Marty.

How would you know, Dave?

> >>> Dave just dispenses logic nuggets from his logical Pez dispenser
> >>> independent of issues and knowledge.
>
> >> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > That's you're "style" of argumentation.
>
> Pointing out your unsubstantiated and erroneous claims is a way of
> noting your "style" of argumentation, Marty.

Again, isolating the above statement from those that followed it.
You're only validating my points.

> > Isolate each statement and test it, removing all context and common
> > sense from consideration.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.  No context or common sense was removed.  Of course,
> that doesn't mean any common sense was present in your remarks in the
> first place.

Prove it, if you think you can.  You have yet to present evidence to the
contrary.

> > Your postings are ample evidence to substantiate my claim.
>
> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Any one who reads your postings has ample evidence to substatiate my
claim.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 17:35:17
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: MS Advocacy Program Over! Go home guys.

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

Wrong-o.

Pre-installation does not equate to instant moral boosting.  I use windows
NT because it's more stable and has more of the apps I need (and in higher
quality) than that other laughable platform...  that does NOT mean I am a
fan of Microsoft nor does that mean I prefer other operating systems (or
platforms).

There's a big difference.

And quite frankly, Microsoft needs ALL the help it can get from those who
aren't Microsoft.

David T. Johnson <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
>
>
> Joseph wrote:
> >
> > MS pulls plug on popular MVP program
> > As part of its campaign to take over the administration of its own MSN
> > newsgroups, Microsoft has decided to pull the plug on its Most Valuable
> > Professional (MVP) advocacy program as of December 1. Similar to Team
> > OS/2 IBM s unofficial OS/2 advocacy organization -- Microsoft MVPs are
> > volunteers who have evangelized for a number of years Microsoft
> > technologies, ranging from Windows to HTML Help. They have acted as
> > Microsoft s unofficial ambassadors at product launches and trade shows.
> > And, most importantly, they have provided Microsoft users who have been
> > unable to reach directly Microsoft officials with guidance and
> > assistance on a variety of product and technical issues. Microsoft
> > recently sent a memo to its MVPs, notifying them their services would no
> > longer be needed.
> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/filters/bursts/0,3422,2378903,00.html
>
> Since Windows is preloaded on almost every new computer sold, there
> doesn't seem to be much need for Windows advocates.  It's interesting
> that most of the Windows advocates who used to hang around this
> newsgroup (for reasons I cannot imagine) seem to have disappeared in the
> last 3 weeks or so.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 17:33:07
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: I agree

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

MS is being stupid by now letting independent people speak up for them.

You may as well have IBM trying to tell the world how great OS/2 is.  That
won't work considering how IBM has treated OS/2 and most of those who have
needed IBM's support.

Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> MS pulls plug on popular MVP program
> As part of its campaign to take over the administration of its own MSN
> newsgroups, Microsoft has decided to pull the plug on its Most Valuable
> Professional (MVP) advocacy program as of December 1. Similar to Team
> OS/2 - IBM's unofficial OS/2 advocacy organization -- Microsoft MVPs are
> volunteers who have evangelized for a number of years Microsoft
> technologies, ranging from Windows to HTML Help. They have acted as
> Microsoft's unofficial ambassadors at product launches and trade shows.
> And, most importantly, they have provided Microsoft users who have been
> unable to reach directly Microsoft officials with guidance and
> assistance on a variety of product and technical issues. Microsoft
> recently sent a memo to its MVPs, notifying them their services would no
> longer be needed.
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/filters/bursts/0,3422,2378903,00.html
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 23:52:14
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> writes:

: On <7uoif5$g0$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 02:34 AM,
:    "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]> said:

: > BTW, he's correct.  Bob, how about knowing what the hell you're talking
: > about before spouting off, eh?  Think you could manage that just once?

: I issued the loudmouth a challenge he totally ignored. I am willing to
: wager serious money that I do know what I am talking about and that he is
: an absolute liar probably on Chief Thief Bill Gates' payroll.

Brent is anything but a liar.  He's never shown anything except
knowlegable statements, and thoughtful posts.  You on the other hand...

: You are about to join him in the killfile.

Like I _FUCKING_ care if I'm in _YOUR_ killfile?!  You really are one of
the most arrogant pompous-asses I have ever come across on USENET.  Do
your worst, tough guy.

Apologies to the others for my language, but this guy is extraordinarily
annoying to me.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| =  :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
|     |  you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._|                    -- Lieutenant Commander Data

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Anamorphic 3-D Graphics Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 23:53:14
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> writes:

: On <7uoiih$g0$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 02:36 AM,
:    "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]> said:

: > I guess some people are just pathetically ignorant, and hopelessly
: > clueless.  Bob, get bent.

: Go commit an anatomically impossible act upon yourself. It's the only way
: you will ever get laid.

Hmmm... IME, it's only people who can't get laid who say things like that.
I'm sure my financee' will find your remark quite humorous.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| =  :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
|     |  you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._|                    -- Lieutenant Commander Data

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Anamorphic 3-D Graphics Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 23:55:20
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> writes:

: Now, go get Mommy to explain it to you.

Ugh!  It's simply useless arguing with the likes of you.

FOAD, ESAD, etc.

*PLOINK!*

I'll take Matt Tempelton over this buck-toothed twerp any day.  Furrfu!
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| =  :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
|     |  you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._|                    -- Lieutenant Commander Data

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Anamorphic 3-D Graphics Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 23:57:00
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]>

Brent Davies <[e-mail]> writes:

: Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
: news:380fe61e$3$obot$[e-mail]...
: | On <7uoif5$g0$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 02:34 AM,
: |    "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]> said:
: |
: | > BTW, he's correct.  Bob, how about knowing what the hell you're talking
: | > about before spouting off, eh?  Think you could manage that just once?
: |
: | I issued the loudmouth a challenge he totally ignored. I am willing to
: | wager serious money that I do know what I am talking about and that he is
: | an absolute liar probably on Chief Thief Bill Gates' payroll. You are
: | about to join him in the killfile.

: This is fresh.  I posted a few messages to him and I'm already in his
: killfile.  Guess he can't handle the truth.

: That brings another question to mind.  He accuses me of ignoring his
: challenge.  What challenge?  And how the hell can he say that I'm ignoring
: him.  It is he who has joined me to his killfile.  Isn't he ignoring me?!?!

My friend, you are trying to find logic in behavior that is completely
obtuse from it.  :-)
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| =  :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
|     |  you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._|                    -- Lieutenant Commander Data

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Anamorphic 3-D Graphics Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]               22-Oct-99 17:00:05
  To: All                                               22-Oct-99 21:23:08
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On 22 Oct 1999 23:02:29 GMT, Karel Jansens wrote:

>Just out of curiosity: do you get 10 minutes per machine, or 10
>minutes in total, to fuzz them up? I mean, it could be a really *big*
>room...

This is not meant to be a trick offer.   So, whatever we perceive as being a
"professional" thing to do.

p.s. I don't rename the name a bug and give it a new name "GPF" to say that
the bug doesn't exist anymore.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+============================================================================+