OS/2 Shareware BBS: 15 Message/15-Message.zip/UU991030.zip/Ua991029.txt

Text File | 1999-10-30 | 2MB | 47,354 lines

                   comp.os.os2.advocacy             (Usenet)

                 Saturday, 23-Oct-1999 to Friday, 29-Oct-1999

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

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          22-Oct-99 11:14:09
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:00
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Bob Germer posted :

> 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.

And how does that support your little story that your dialup problems
was secondary to a bug in the win95 dialup networking?

--
-=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 09:22:06
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:00
Subj: MS Advocacy Program Over! Go home guys.

From: Joseph <[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: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                           22-Oct-99 12:57:26
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:00
Subj: Re: MS Advocacy Program Over! Go home guys.

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 09:22 AM,
   Joseph <[e-mail]> said:

>  Microsoft
> recently sent a memo to its MVPs, notifying them their services would no
> longer be needed.

I guess not. The world doesn't need MicroSoft so why would it need support
for MS?

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
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 12:56:25
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:00
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 11:14 AM,
   Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:

> And how does that support your little story that your dialup problems
> was secondary to a bug in the win95 dialup networking?

They are TWO DIFFERENT bugs!

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
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 17:25:02
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:00
Subj: (1/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>


Hey, it took a few years, but it seems Dave has finally collapsed.
I suppose someone in Hawaii must be putting him in that jacket, long
sleeves, crossed in the back.

In article <7unkvd$lak$[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.
>
> Relevance can be determined logically, Roberto.  Judges aren't
> needed.

You can only logically declare something relevant if there is a standard
of relevance previously accepted.

> > This is not a court.
>
> If it were, you'd be laughed out of it, Roberto.  Or worse, fined for
> pursuing a frivolous matter.

Maybe, because in a court there is an accepted standard for relevance.

> > There are no standard rules for relevance.
>
> You don't need rules, Roberto, just a bit of logic.

You can apply logic to say if something is relevant or not, but only
if there is a rule about what is relevant. If relevant is defined as
"whatever Dave declares relevant", logic won't help a bit.

> > 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.

Indeed. Feel free to ignore my posts and not reply. Never asked anything
further from you.

> >>>>> 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.

Relevance according to the gosbel by Tholen is hardly a litmus test
for coherence.

> > That only matters to you, in your own head.
>
> Incorrect, given that it matters to anyone trying to make a coherent
> argument.

Say, the law lords of the British Kingdom. Should they care about what
you
think is relevant if they try to make a coherent argument in the
Pinochet
case?

> >>> 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 that's why I didn't use that specific fact.

> > and helps me make my point.
>
> Irrelevant points won't do you any good, Roberto.

I don't care about what you deem relevant 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.
>
> >> 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.

Tried. No dice.

> > 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.

You are assigning a ulterior motive to my insertion of bracketed
material
"change the chronology of what occurred". That is what you are saying I
did.
There is nothing in that sentence that is a basis for your accusation,
only
the accusation itself. Truth by fiat.

> >>>> 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.

Nope. No if you believe I can't express myself, and you have said so.

> >>> 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*.

Which was not about anything involving the number 134.

> You're not a credible
> witness.  You can be dismissed, along with your nomination.

This is not a court. But hey, if you want to play that game, in this
very
thread you have shown yourself as a liar. You are dismissed.

> > I was simply RETURNING to the subject before your non sequitur.
>
> What alleged non sequitur, Roberto?

The one I already identified several times. Your short memory is really
bad.

> >>>>> -----
> >>>>> 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.

Evasion is one of the basic tenets of tholenism.

> >>> 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?

I read them. I actually wrote a few.

> >>>>> [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.

The results didn't include a date range. In fact the query included a
date range written by me which was ignored by the search program.

> >>>>> [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.

By you. Since you are a proven liar (in this very thread), your opinion
can be dismissed as you said before.

> >>>>> 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?

Of course I assumed the implicit condition that you can't deny it
in a reasonable manner.

> >>>> 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.

If you could, how would you do 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.
>
> What alleged illogical responses, Roberto?  Care to substantiate your
> claims for a change?

Sure. Lying is illogical. You are a liar.

> >>>>> 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.

Why is your claim of irrelevance logical and my claim of relevance
illogical? Neither has shown any substantiation. Your "illogical" is
illogical.

> >>>> 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.

Irrelevance doesn't exist in a vacuum. Someone has to declare
irrelevance.

> >>>>> 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.
>
> 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.

So you said that

"Apparently you think there is no ground between [being universally seen
as
a BOPRAT] and [not being universally seen as a BOPRAT]"

Then yes, you are correct. I don't think there is middle ground between
those two positions. Please notice that the second simply means that
there
is someone that sees you as a no-BOPRAT.

> >>>>> 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.

Why? It seems to be wasted on you.

> > So, now, fuck you for the reminder.
>
> Very well.

So, are you now fucking yourself?

> >>>>> 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

Illogical.

> >>> 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

Illogical. You obviously have nothing to support your position.

> >>>> 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

Actually I think the right answer to "says who?" was "I, Dave Tholen,
did".

> >> Why repeat it?
>
> > To make it easier for the reader.
>
> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>    --Roberto Alsina

That's how you repay kindness to the reader.

> >>> 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.
>
> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>    --Roberto Alsina

Unlike your original answer.

> >>>>> 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

No, that is a singular "you".

> >>> 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

No, that is a singular "you".

> >>>>> 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

No, that was not what "that" meant.

> >>>>> Stop saying it,
>

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 17:25:02
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:00
Subj: (2/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

> >>>> 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

That's not a yes, nor is it a 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.
> >
> > 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

So, you are a liar. I knew that all along.

> >>>>>> 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

Liar liar, pants on fire!

> >>> 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

Seems not.

> >> 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

Your nose is going to grow.

> >>>>>>>>> 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

Looks like you don;t wanna learn french either.

> >>>>> 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

Seems not.

> >>>>> 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

Note: quote.

> >>>>> 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

See? you did the same thing.

> >>> 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

Remember Dave, lie has short legs! You are a liar.

> >>> 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

"Non sequitur"
  --Dave Tholen

> >>> 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

"Dave Tholen is a liar"
  --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

Well, looks like you needed it. I suppose IT is not a part of the
astronomy
curriculum.

> >>>>> 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

And that, my friend, was a bucket of drool all by itself.

--
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 17:32:10
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:00
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>


Since all the latest quoted material below is either Eliza responses
pasted by Dave Tholen, or Dave Tholen doing his best to sound like
Eliza (he did once try to do that and failed miserably, so I suppose
he used the real thing this time), I will not reply to it. That would be
the act of a kook.

However, I will use this post for a more useful purpose.

Anyone who argues with Tholen in the future can now use the following
fact: Dave has been proven a liar. He has also said that what a liar
says
can be dismissed because his credibility is diminished. So, just call
him
a liar, and whenever he tries to argue about it, dismiss him because of
his diminished credibility.

So, now, USENET should be a better place.

--
Roberto Alsina

In article <7uov84$kap$[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?
>
> 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?
>
>


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: b o b h @ w a s a t c h . c o m                   22-Oct-99 11:41:14
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:00
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: Bob Hauck <b o b h @ w a s a t c h . c o m>

"Chad Myers" <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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)

Hey now, only "Linuts" are allowed toss out conspiracy theories.


> it's only fair that MS should take a cheap shot at the DOJ.

Why not, they take them at anyone else within range...

Seriously, it could be that MS thinks they are going to lose the case
and want to have an easier time on appeal.  If they thought that they
were going to win lobbying for a DOJ budget reduction would be a waste
of money.

--
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| Wasatch Communications Group
 -| http://www.wasatch.com/~bobh

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 17:36:25
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:00
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
  Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:
> [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?

Well, everyone (except Dave) knows the answer to that question, right?

It took some years, but Dave finally lost his few remaining marbles.

--
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 17:50:01
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:00
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail]

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.

> 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.

> Why not just quote it once at the end of the "remainder"?

There wasn't just a single item to which to respond, 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.

>>> Take a few deep breaths Dave...

>> Unnecessary, Marty.

> Ok.  Don't breathe at all then.

Illogical, 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.

> as no infantile game is being played here.

Incorrect, Marty.  You are obviously back to playing your "infantile
game".

> 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.

> 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.

> Do you talk to your radio Dave?

Non sequitur.  Or are claiming that you're a radio, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 17:59:29
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:00
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail]

Roberto Alsina writes:

> Since all the latest quoted material below is either Eliza responses
> pasted by Dave Tholen, or Dave Tholen doing his best to sound like
> Eliza (he did once try to do that and failed miserably,

Incorrect, Roberto; I never tried to sound like Eliza.

> so I suppose he used the real thing this time),

I extracted responses from a posting that you claimed contained
Eliza responses both times, Roberto.  You fell for it the first
time, hook, line, and sinker.

> I will not reply to it.

What do you consider the posting of yours to which I'm responding,
Roberto?

> That would be the act of a kook.

So was your claim that I posted an average of 134 articles a day,
Roberto, and your failure to admit the error in a timely fashion.

> However, I will use this post for a more useful purpose.
>
> Anyone who argues with Tholen in the future can now use the following
> fact: Dave has been proven a liar.

Where is this alleged proof, Roberto?

> He has also said that what a liar says can be dismissed because
> his credibility is diminished.

Which means that you can be dismissed, given that you lied about the
average number of postings I made each day.

> So, just call him a liar,

But you're a liar, Roberto, which means that your claim can be
dismissed.

> and whenever he tries to argue about it, dismiss him because of
> his diminished credibility.

Precisely why your claim can be dismissed, Roberto.

> So, now, USENET should be a better place.

Are you planning to leave, Roberto?

>>>>>>>>> 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 B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 14:05:27
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:00
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> Since all the latest quoted material below is either Eliza responses
> pasted by Dave Tholen, or Dave Tholen doing his best to sound like
> Eliza (he did once try to do that and failed miserably, so I suppose
> he used the real thing this time), I will not reply to it. That would be
> the act of a kook.
>
> However, I will use this post for a more useful purpose.
>
> Anyone who argues with Tholen in the future can now use the following
> fact: Dave has been proven a liar. He has also said that what a liar
> says can be dismissed because his credibility is diminished. So, just
> call him a liar, and whenever he tries to argue about it, dismiss him
> because of his diminished credibility.
>
> So, now, USENET should be a better place.

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, and therefore has no credibility
to begin with.  Dave just dispenses logic nuggets from his logical Pez
dispenser independent of issues and knowledge.  This activity does not
and can not earn credibility.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 12:07:29
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: MS Advocacy Program Over! Go home guys.

From: "David T. Johnson" <[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: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 15:24:00
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

For a change this time Dave actually explicitly showed how he recycled
this argument instead of pretending he writes new material.  He's on the
road to recovery.

[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.
>
> 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: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                 22-Oct-99 19:26:14
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

I'll just reply to both articles here, to avoid too much repetition...

In article <7upk7g$27t$[e-mail]>,
 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>>> 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."
>
>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.

>>>> 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,  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.
>
>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.

This is quite amusing: here you are defending a claim originally made
by Joseph Coughlan with the argument that "the version number is
quite relevant".  Ironically, you seem to have ignored the actual
point that Joseph was trying to make:

  "How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.
   That's a metric that is not justifiable, not even close to
   understanding what is going on."

His point is that *YOU CANNOT USE VERSION NUMBERS TO DETERMINE
FUNCTIONALITY*.  He was claiming that Netscape 2.02 on OS/2 had
the functionality of Netscape 3.0, and that JDK 1.1.8 on OS/2
had the functionality of JDK 1.2.

You guys should get your act together.

>>>> 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.
>
>On the contrary, it leads people to conclude that it implements JDK 1.2
>functionality, Mike.

Tell me, Dave, does "JDK 1.2 functionality" mean the same thing as
"the functionality of JDK 1.2"?  If I have a car that offers "Porsche
performance", wouldn't you expect it to offer the performance of
a Porsche?  Or is "Porsche performance" somehow different from "the
performance of a Porsche"?

>>>> 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.

That's not a semantic argument, Dave; there's a defined difference
between something included in the JDK and something that's an
extension.  Anything in the JDK is assumed to be in other JDKs with
the same version number.  Standard extensions are not always available.


>>>> 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?

The point is that IBM's classes are not Java 2 security classes; they
are not in Java 2.  Originally IBM called them Java 2 security classes.
They were mistaken.  They now refer to "security enhancements based on
the Java 2 security model".

>> 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.

IBM is wrong in that regard.  The current information they provide
is correct.  My statement is correct -- IBM's added classes are not
Java 2 security classes.

>> Regardless of what IBM might state, the Communications API is not
>> part of Java 2.
>
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
>Mike.

No, it does not.  Nowhere does it state that the Communications API
is part of Java 2.  That is you misinterpretation.

>>>>>> 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.
>
>Read the rest of the article, Mike.

I did, Dave.

>> 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.

And nowhere in that article does IBM state that they consider those
features "Java 2 functionality".  That is your misinterpretation.



In article <7updpq$t1p$[e-mail]>,
 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>> 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".
>
>Irrelevant, given that IBM stated that the Java 2 security classes are
>in JDK 1.1.8, not JDK 1.2.

It's quite relevent; if the classes are not in JDK 1.2, what is it that
makes them "Java 2 security classes"?  Nothing; they aren't in Java 2!

>>> 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.
>
>It's not a prediction, Mike.  The article indicates what was contained
>in the preview available that same day.

What does it indicate about the final release, which is what we're
talking about?  Are you now revising your statement to be "IBM's
JDK 1.1.8 (Preview) implements JDK 1.2 functionality"?

>> 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.

On the contrary, you earlier claimed they were talking about the final
release.  That's why they use the future tense.  That was not 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.

On the contrary, we're talking about the final release, which was not
available until two months after the article you cite.

>> 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.

No so; reality beats a prediction any day.  JDK 1.1.8 has been released.

>> Such is the case here.  You point to a press release about a future JDK.
>
>Incorrect.  I pointed to an article about a preview available that same
>day.

Then your article is irrelevent; we're talking about the final release.

>> I point to the actual JDK in question.
>
>Incorrect, Mike.

How so?  I point to the actual JDK in question.

>You haven't even used the JDK.

I need not have used the JDK to know what it contains.

>>>>>> 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.
>
>MT] in IBM's JDK 1.1.8, IBM implemented additional security classes in the
>MT] com.ibm.* packages.

Do you know the difference between "The rt.jar file in java 2" and "IBM's
JDK 1.1.8"?  Apparently not.  You obviously don't even understand the meaning
of the phrases you're quoting.

>> My statement stands.
>
>Which one, Mike?

All of them.

>>>> 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.

On the contrary, the class proves exactly what you asked for; the classes
that IBM added are not in Java 2.

>> Run that class on a Java 2 reference platform.  It'll give you your
>> answer.
>
>Namely that you don't have an argument.

No, it proves that the classes are missing, which is exactly what
you wanted.  What's your counterargument?  You have none.

>>>> 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.
>
>Incorrect, Mike.  The preview was available that same day.

Do you understand the difference between the preview and the
shipping product?  We're talking about the shipping product.

>> If you have any current information to back you up, please, feel
>> free to share it.
>
>Unnecessary, Mike.

Ah, in your mind, current information is unnecessary.  I see.

>> 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?

Your question includes a false assumption.  You assume that IBM could
have included "Swing for 1.2" in their version of JDK 1.1.8.  That
assumption is false.

>>>>> 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?

No, Dave, I said that Swing isn't up to version 1.2 yet.  What part of
that don't you understand?

>>>> 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.

No, it does not.  The only reference to Swing in that message is this:

  "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 does not say "Swing for 1.2" anywhere in the message, and the phrase
"Java 2" in that sentence clearly refers only to "security classes".

You are relying on your misinterpretation instead of what the article
actually states.

>> 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,

Bullshit.  I never claimed that at all.

>yet here you are claiming
>that 1.2 requires features that aren't in 1.1.8.  Do make up your
>mind, Mike.

My mind is made up, and my argument is consistent.  You just don't
know enough about Java to even understand my argument.

>>>>>> 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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 22-Oct-99 19:26:14
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

>>>>> ] 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?

Then you admit that IBM did not refer to the features as "Java 2
functionality".  That was not IBM's choice of words.

The argument you're making:

  "implements JDK 1.2 funtionality".

IBM's actual choice of words:

  "Selected functions from Sun's Java 2 technology are being added"

Those are not the same thing.  Why didn't you present the actual quote
from IBM?  Because it blows your argument out of the water.

>>>> 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.

I did, Dave.  As I said, nowhere in the rest of the article are those
features referred to as "Java 2 functionality".  They are not.  That
is your misinterpretation.

>>>>>> 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.
>
>Meanwhile, the preview was available the same day.

Irrelevent.  We're talking about the final release, not the preview.

>> Your information is out of date.
>
>Prove it, Mike.

I offer IBM's JDK 1.1.8, which is current.  I also offer IBM's current
description of the shipping version of their JDK, which supercedes
your newsgroup article written two months before the JDK shipped.

  IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition,
  Version 1.1.8 incorporates the latest IBM JIT 3.5 compiler
  technology with MMI function. New to this release are security
  enhancements based on the Java 2 security model; Swing, Supported
  by IBM; RMI-IIOP, Supported by IBM; and the Java COMM API for OS/2
  providing serial and parallel device support and enabling JavaPOS
  and JavaXFS

No longer do they refer to the security enhancements as "Java 2
security classes"; instead, they refer to as "security enhancements
based on the Java 2 security model".  Also, there's no reference
to Swing, RMI-IIOP, and the Java COMM API as "Java 2 functionality",
because they are *not* Java 2 functionality.


>> The actual release is, obviously, more recent than the article
>> in question.
>
>Which proves nothing, Mike.

On the contrary, it proves that the article you refer to is out of
date.

>> 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.

Download the JDK and look yourself; Swing, RMI-IIOP, and the COMM API
are not included.  They are extensions you must download separately,
just as they are for other (non-OS/2) releases of JDK 1.1.x.

>You research
>skills are obviously lacking, given your inability to find the
>referenced article.

You cannot use the message-ID of an article to find it with deja.com,
Dave.  Since all you had provided was the message-ID, there was no way
to find the article in question.  This has nothing to do with my
research skills.

>> My evidence supercedes yours.
>
>Your evidence consists of your word.  My evidence consists of IBM's
>word, Mike.

Not so.  Your evidence consists of your incorrect interpretation
of an IBM press release issued two months before the product became
available.  My evidence consists of the actual contents of the JDK
in question, as well as IBM's current description of the JDK in
question.

Your "evidence" loses.

     - Mike

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 19:34:13
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

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.

> He's on the road to recovery.

Typical invective.  Meanwhile, you're continuing your "infantile game",
following me around into different threads like a puppy, and Lucien is
also obviously playing a game, as the evidence below clearly demonstrates.

>> 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 B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 19:58:19
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: (1/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail]

For the record, I want to note that Alsina once again 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:

> Hey, it took a few years, but it seems Dave has finally collapsed.
>
> I suppose someone in Hawaii must be putting him in that jacket, long
> sleeves, crossed in the back.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> 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.

> You can only logically declare something relevant if there is a standard
> of relevance previously accepted.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> This is not a court.

>> If it were, you'd be laughed out of it, Roberto.  Or worse, fined for
>> pursuing a frivolous matter.

> Maybe, because in a court there is an accepted standard for relevance.

What makes you believe that?

>>> There are no standard rules for relevance.

>> You don't need rules, Roberto, just a bit of logic.

> You can apply logic to say if something is relevant or not, but only
> if there is a rule about what is relevant. If relevant is defined as
> "whatever Dave declares relevant", logic won't help a bit.

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>> 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.

> Indeed. Feel free to ignore my posts and not reply. Never asked anything
> further from you.

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> 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.

> Relevance according to the gosbel by Tholen is hardly a litmus test
> for coherence.

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>> That only matters to you, in your own head.

>> Incorrect, given that it matters to anyone trying to make a coherent
>> argument.

> Say, the law lords of the British Kingdom. Should they care about what
> you think is relevant if they try to make a coherent argument in the
> Pinochet case?

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> 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 that's why I didn't use that specific fact.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> and helps me make my point.

>> Irrelevant points won't do you any good, Roberto.

> I don't care about what you deem relevant or not.

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>> 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.

> Tried. No dice.

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>> 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.

> You are assigning a ulterior motive to my insertion of bracketed
> material "change the chronology of what occurred". That is what you
> are saying I did.  There is nothing in that sentence that is a basis
> for your accusation, only the accusation itself. Truth by fiat.

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>> 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.

> Nope. No if you believe I can't express myself, and you have said so.

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>> 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*.

> Which was not about anything involving the number 134.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>> You're not a credible
>> witness.  You can be dismissed, along with your nomination.

> This is not a court. But hey, if you want to play that game, in this
> very thread you have shown yourself as a liar. You are dismissed.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> I was simply RETURNING to the subject before your non sequitur.

>> What alleged non sequitur, Roberto?

> The one I already identified several times. Your short memory is really
> bad.

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>> 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.

> Evasion is one of the basic tenets of tholenism.

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>> 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?

> I read them. I actually wrote a few.

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> [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.

> The results didn't include a date range. In fact the query included a
> date range written by me which was ignored by the search program.

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>>>> [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.

> By you. Since you are a proven liar (in this very thread), your opinion
> can be dismissed as you said before.

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>>> 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?

> Of course I assumed the implicit condition that you can't deny it
> in a reasonable manner.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>> 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.

> If you could, how would you do it?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>> 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?

> Sure. Lying is illogical. You are a liar.

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>> 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.

> Why is your claim of irrelevance logical and my claim of relevance
> illogical? Neither has shown any substantiation. Your "illogical" is
> illogical.

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>> 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.

> Irrelevance doesn't exist in a vacuum. Someone has to declare
> irrelevance.

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>>> 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.

>> 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.

> So you said that
>
> "Apparently you think there is no ground between [being universally seen
> as a BOPRAT] and [not being universally seen as a BOPRAT]"
>
> Then yes, you are correct. I don't think there is middle ground between
> those two positions. Please notice that the second simply means that
> there is someone that sees you as a no-BOPRAT.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> 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.

> Why? It seems to be wasted on you.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> So, now, fuck you for the reminder.

>> Very well.

> So, are you now fucking yourself?

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>> 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

> Illogical.

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> 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

> Illogical. You obviously have nothing to support your position.

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>> 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?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 19:58:19
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: (2/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>>    --Roberto Alsina

> Actually I think the right answer to "says who?" was "I, Dave Tholen,
> did".

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>> Why repeat it?

>>> To make it easier for the reader.

>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>>    --Roberto Alsina

> That's how you repay kindness to the reader.

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>> 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.

>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>>    --Roberto Alsina

> Unlike your original answer.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> 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

> No, that is a singular "you".

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>> 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

> No, that is a singular "you".

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>> 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

> No, that was not what "that" meant.

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> 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

> That's not a yes, nor is it a no.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>> 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

> So, you are a liar. I knew that all along.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>>> 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

> Liar liar, pants on fire!

What makes you believe that?

>>>>> 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

> Seems not.

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>> 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

> Your nose is going to grow.

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>>>>>> 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

> Looks like you don;t wanna learn french either.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>> 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

> Seems not.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> 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

> Note: quote.

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>> 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

> See? you did the same thing.

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>> 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

> Remember Dave, lie has short legs! You are a liar.

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> 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

> "Non sequitur"
>   --Dave Tholen

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>> 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

> "Dave Tholen is a liar"
>   --Roberto Alsina

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>> 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

> Well, looks like you needed it. I suppose IT is not a part of the
> astronomy curriculum.

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>> 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

> And that, my friend, was a bucket of drool all by itself.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]...               22-Oct-99 14:27:22
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

Message sender: [e-mail]

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Jerry McBride <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
>
> Futzing? I can show you a WHOLE room of computers that will corrupt the
> registry by just installing a cdrom...
>
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?

> >
> >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?
>
Um, yes, you can. You obviously know nothing about NT administration. "HOW
in the heel?" you been spending too much time looking at womens shoes?
Remote reboot is acomplished in so many ways... boring to list them all.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]...               22-Oct-99 14:28:09
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

Message sender: [e-mail]

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Hey Chad - let's fly down and visit Jerry's "WHOLE room" - whatcha say?

Chad Mulligan <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:7uoild$p5q$[e-mail]...
>
> Jerry McBride wrote in message <[e-mail]>...
> >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.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]...               22-Oct-99 14:29:27
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

Message sender: [e-mail]

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Wrong (or should I say: more lies and FUD)

You can run the bitstream fontware autodownloader to handle these fonts
under Win9x no problemo. You just gotta know how to do it.

Tell you what. *I* know how to do it. Pay me to come down and do it and I'll
prove it. No joke. E-mail me and we'll make arrangements for airfare and
when I can do it... and my fee.


Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380fe4b6$2$obot$[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: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]...               22-Oct-99 14:31:25
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

Message sender: [e-mail]

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

That's a long way to 10,000 seats Bobby boy...

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380fe41a$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <7uo23i$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: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]...               22-Oct-99 14:32:07
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

Message sender: [e-mail]

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Um, no. It's not.

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380fe7eb$8$obot$[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: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 18:41:10
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail]

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.

> 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.

> Dave just dispenses logic nuggets from his logical Pez dispenser
> independent of issues and knowledge.

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.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 18:47:17
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail]

Roberto Alsina writes:

> Marty wrote:

>> I wrote:

>>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>>>    --Roberto Alsina

>> Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
>> would do?

> Well, everyone (except Dave) knows the answer to that question, right?

How would you know what everyone thinks, Roberto?

> It took some years, but Dave finally lost his few remaining marbles.

Typical invective, and rather ironic, coming from someone who didn't
have enough marbles to compute an average posting rate properly.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 18:58:17
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

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 B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             22-Oct-99 18:55:15
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

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.

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.

>> 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).

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.

>>> Clearly, you've forgotten what your argument was

>> Incorrect.

> No, 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.

>> My argument was based on the definition of the word
>> "prevent",

> And your argument was wrong and was proven to be so.

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.

>> and I've clearly not forgotten that.

> You've clearly forgotten the substance of your own argument.

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.

>>> (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).

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.

>>> 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.

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.

>>>>> 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.

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.

>>>>> 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.

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.

>>>>> 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.

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'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.

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.

>>>>>> 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.

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.

>>>>>> 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.

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.

>>>>>>> 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.

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 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.

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.

>>> Your illogic, however, has been repeatedly and painfully (for you)
>>> proven.

>> Where have you allegedly done that, Lucien?

> 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.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]               22-Oct-99 13:56:21
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Put up or shut up

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

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.



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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     22-Oct-99 14:02:24
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

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

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. 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.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     22-Oct-99 14:11:14
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: MS Advocacy Program Over! Go home guys.

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

David T. Johnson wrote:
>
> 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.

I disagree.  Preloads have been dominate since the late 80's.  Systems
with preloaded OSs need help.  My lab's Win95 OSR2 needed to be totally
reinstalled 3 times since the PC was purchased in mid 1997.

I think the MVP program is ending since MS wants and needs to take
control of the dialoge about MS and their software.  Look at the
advocacy commentary on their behalf, it often is nutty and provocative.

> 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.

I for one am happy.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                      22-Oct-99 14:32:21
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:380fe41a$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <7uo23i$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.
>

You're the one implementing.  If you haven't tested you are 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: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary Organization (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                      22-Oct-99 14:37:18
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Drestin Black <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> Hey Chad - let's fly down and visit Jerry's "WHOLE room" - whatcha say?
>

Do you think his parents would let us in?

> Chad Mulligan <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:7uoild$p5q$[e-mail]...
> >
> > Jerry McBride wrote in message <[e-mail]>...
> > >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.
>
>
>


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 23-Oct-99 00:10:22
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7uqpvs$2ns$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:
>
>> 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.

Simply because there is a difference between imference and implication
does not mean I don't understand the difference.  In this case, Joseph
was clearly implying that the OS/2 JDK 1.1.8 is somehow superior, due
to JDK 1.2 functionality, than other implementations of JDK 1.1.8.  He
*did* imply it...

>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.

...just as you're doing.

>> 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.

Not so.  I explained why, in context, the claim is incorrect.  You
deleted that section without comment.  Telling.

>The rest is merely your attempt to divert attention away from that issue.

Since I've demonstrated that JDK 1.1.8 doesn't implement the functionality
of JDK 1.2, the rest is my attempt to determine what, if any, features
from JDK 1.2 actually *are* implemented.

You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes Java 2 security classes.  You claimed
JDK 1.1.8 includes the Java 2 versions of Swing.  You claimed JDK 1.1.8
includes "Java 2 versions" of RMI/IIOP and the COMM API.

All of your claims are wrong.

>> 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, Dave, I am absolutely certain that you don't know what you're
talking about.  And you are proving my point with every post you make.

     - Mike


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                    23-Oct-99 02:15:29
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Gerben Bergman <[e-mail]>

With half his brain tied behind his back, Tim Smith 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.
|
| What does it mean for a number to be "exponentially larger" than another
| number?

<Bob Germer> The fact that you ask such a stupid question proves that you're
a worthless moron no one should take seriously. You're just another Windows
idiot paid by Bill Gates to spread outrageous lies and FUD, and I'm far too
intelligent to fall for that -- you will join the rest of the Microsoft
Lemmings in my killfile. </Bob Germer>

Hey, it's easy. :)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         23-Oct-99 00:28:07
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
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.

> Apparently not, as you seem to feel the need to correct me all the
> time.

That's for the benefit of other readers, Marty, who may not be familiar
with your dishonest acts.

> Your actions are once again in conflict with your words.

Incorrect, Marty.  There's no conflict.

>>> 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.

That doesn't change the fact that you made the claim, Marty, therefore
the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

> I've already sited your postings as my evidence.

And where were those postings allegedly sited, Marty?  Or did you
really mean "cited"?  Citing a tiny subset of my postings does nothing
to support your argument, Marty.

> Present yours or accept my statement.

Unnecessary, Marty, because you made the claim, and therefore the burden
of proof falls on your shoulders.

>>> I may have missed it.

>> Obviously.

> So present it to me then.

You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
shoulders, Marty.

>>> 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?

You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
shoulders, Marty.  I shouldn't need any motivation.

>>>>> 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?

You've assumed guilt unless I can prove my innocence.

> I'm stating my observations.

You're making unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.

> Your flat rejection of them

With good reason, given that they are not true.

> and admittance that you have dismissed me long ago

Based on your unsubstantiated and erroneous claims, as well as your
admission that you play an "infantile game".

> is conclusive evidence of your closed mind, however.

Illogical, Marty.  My mind has been open to all the evidence you've
provided me.

>>> When you have, I'll retract.

>> That's not how an open mind wor[k]s, Marty.

> How would you know, Dave?

How ironic.

>>>>> 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.

Incorrect, Marty.  I'm countering your so-called "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're the one who claimed that I removed all context and common sense,
Marty, therefore the burden of proof falls on your shoulders.

> You have yet to present evidence to the contrary.

You have yet to present evidence.

>>> 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.

Incorrect, Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               22-Oct-99 20:37:28
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
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.
>
> Then why did you put my name after his, Marty?

To note that you quoted him.  This is a key point that you apparently
missed.

> > I was quoting your act of quoting him.
>
> You have the direct quotation, Marty, so no indirect quotation is necessary.
>
> > You'll note that I left the attribution to him intact.
>
> And I noted that you added an unnecessary one.

It was quite necessary.

> >>>>>>>>>> "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.
>
> Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?

Still erroneously asking irrelevant questions Dave?

> I didn't indicate any agreement.

You certainly did.  By using my argument against me, you are inherently
agreeing with it.  Why would you write something with which you
disagreed?

> I was asking a question using your text for the question.

And I was making the statement you made in quoting you.  You questioned
your own quote as to whether it was something a normal, well adjusted,
relaxed individual would do.  You already know my position on the
matter, so you are inherently agreeing with me.

> > Having proved my point,
>
> How did you allegedly do that, Marty?

See above.

> > I have eliminated the repetition.
>
> You haven't eliminated your "infantile game", Marty.

Which you haven't substantiated Dave.  Why not keep an open mind and
retract your charge until it is proven?  Could it be because you are a
blatent hypocrite with a pronounced double standard?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         23-Oct-99 00:19:05
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
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?

> I wasn't attributing his quote to you.

Then why did you put my name after his, Marty?

> I was quoting your act of quoting him.

You have the direct quotation, Marty, so no indirect quotation is necessary.

> You'll note that I left the attribution to him intact.

And I noted that you added an unnecessary one.

>>>>>>>>>> "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.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I didn't indicate
any agreement.  I was asking a question using your text for the question.

> Having proved my point,

How did you allegedly do that, Marty?

> I have eliminated the repetition.

You haven't eliminated your "infantile game", Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     22-Oct-99 17:42:20
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


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

On 10-23-99, 12:10:45 AM, [e-mail] (Mike Timbol) wrote
regarding Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!:


> In article <7uqpvs$2ns$[e-mail]>,
> Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:
> >
> >> 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.

> Simply because there is a difference between imference and implication
> does not mean I don't understand the difference.  In this case, Joseph
> was clearly implying that the OS/2 JDK 1.1.8 is somehow superior, due
> to JDK 1.2 functionality, than other implementations of JDK 1.1.8.  He
> *did* imply it...

If Mr. Timbol should have quoted the text (as any FAQ, or Newbie's
guide to the newsgroups describes is good etiquette) in its context.
One sentence was not sufficient and his correction was inappropriate.







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

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

From: [e-mail]                         23-Oct-99 00:40:22
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>> Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:

>>> 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.

> Simply because there is a difference between imference and implication
> does not mean I don't understand the difference.

The fact that you used the incorrect word does mean that you don't
understand the difference, Mike.

> In this case, Joseph was clearly implying that the OS/2 JDK 1.1.8 is
> somehow superior,

Incorrect, Mike.  In that case, you were clearly inferring that the
OS/2 JDK 1.1.8 is somehow superior.

> due to JDK 1.2 functionality, than other implementations of JDK 1.1.8.
> He *did* imply it...

Incorrect, Mike.  You *did* infer it.

>> 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.

> ....just as you're doing.

Incorrect, Mike.  I'm not implying superiority; you're inferring it.
Note that I did not use the word "superior" at all.  I simply said
"does offer less".  A compiler can offer more extensions and still
be inferior to another compiler, if, for example, it's loaded with
bugs.  You're putting words into my mouth by taking "does offer less"
and translating that into "inferiority".  Your erroneous inference
is your problem, Mike, and your erroneous use of "imply" once again
reinforces my position.

>>> 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.

> Not so.

Balderdash, Mike.

> I explained why, in context, the claim is incorrect.

Incorrect, Mike.  Rather, you admitted that some functionality was,
in fact, implemented, and it's illogical to assume that all functionality
was implemented.

> You deleted that section without comment.  Telling.

How ironic, coming from Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol.  Telling.

>> The rest is merely your attempt to divert attention away from that issue.

> Since I've demonstrated that JDK 1.1.8 doesn't implement the functionality
> of JDK 1.2,

On the contrary, you've agreed that it does, Mike:

MT] It supports *some* of it.  Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2.

> the rest is my attempt to determine what, if any, features
> from JDK 1.2 actually *are* implemented.

Why would you need to do that, Mike, having agreed that it implements
some of the functionality?  Joseph made no claims about specifics.

> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes Java 2 security classes.

That's because it does, Mike.

> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes the Java 2 versions of Swing.

That's because it does, Mike.

> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes "Java 2 versions" of RMI/IIOP and
> the COMM API.

That's because it does, Mike.

> All of your claims are wrong.

Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise, Mike.
But even if true, does that someone make Joseph's statement wrong?

>>> 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, Dave, I am absolutely certain that you don't know what you're
> talking about.

Feel free to demonstrate how I misunderstood IBM's article, Mike.

> And you are proving my point with every post you make.

In reality, you're proving your illogic with every post you make.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         23-Oct-99 00:53:15
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
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.

> No, but your *postings* do.

Balderdash, Marty.  My postings don't allow you to conclude that I was
pretending.

> Are you telling me what I'm allowed to conclude and what I'm not?

I'm telling you what you can logically conclude.  You can reach all
the illogical conclusions you want, Marty, if you want to look like
a fool.

> Funny, but last time I looked, you had no authority over me.

I don't need any authority over you, Marty.

>>> Oh, but I forgot... that doesn't work for me, does it?

>> No, it doesn't.

> Again the blatent double-standard.

What alleged double-standard, Marty?

>>> That only works for you.

>> Where have I concluded that you're pretending, Marty?

> Having trouble recognizing that this statement was generalized?

Having trouble being sequitur, Marty?

> I'm not surprised.

I'm not surprised that you were apparently non sequitur.

>>>>> 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.

I did no such thing, Marty.  I was simply noting that your claim
"not 'invective'" is incorrect.

> How arrogant.

How abusive.

>>> 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.

Illogical, given that your use of "such things" follows your use of
invective.

>>>> 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.

Simple:  read your postings, Marty.

> You're the one claiming it exists.

I'm looking at it.

> You then tell me I'm playing it and tell me that I should know the rules
> and how many points I've earned.

It's your game, Marty.

> How can I, seeing as how it is all in your head?

It's not in my head, Marty.  It's right here in the newsgroup, in plain
sight for all the readers to see.

>>>> 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.

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> The evidence you are about to request is above,

What request, Marty?

> 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."

That doesn't prove that I interpret each statement individually, isolated
from common sense, and staunchly literal when it suits me.

>>> 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.

Incorrect, Marty, given that I've been correcting erroneous statements
made by others.

>>> 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.

Incorrect, Marty.

>>>> 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.

Balderdash, Marty.

> I have read the "evidence" and it is not obvious to me.

That's your problem, Marty.  When I ask for the word that is allegedly
analogous to "prevent" in the current situation, and he points to a
posting from years ago, it's clear that he playing a game, as the
current situation did not exist years ago.

> Seeing as how I qualify as "anyone"

Did you bother to comprehend the evidence, Marty?

> you just lied and can be dismissed.

Incorrect, Marty.

>>> 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.

You deleted the relevant text, Marty.  That's your problem.

> The very fact that you'd need to demonstrate why it's obvious proves
> that it is not.

On the contrary, it's quite obvious.  That you claim it is not is simply
more evidence of your own "infantile game".

>>> Your "evidence" below does not support this statement.

>> Balderdash, Marty.  Or do you believe in time warps?

> Taking a stab at absurd irrelevancies?

On the contrary, Marty, it's quite relevant.

> You sure nailed that one.

On the contrary, Marty, you blew that one.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     22-Oct-99 18:01:19
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: MS Advocacy Program Over! Go home guys.

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


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

On 10-22-99, 10:35:35 PM, "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]> wrote
regarding Re: MS Advocacy Program Over! Go home guys.:


> 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).

This phony boosting you and others perform is ugly and degrading. It
offends. You and this transparent advocacy are one of the reasons MS
is ending the MVP program.   It is unbecoming of a large company to
have phony boosters insult and provoke.  I believe you have this
tendency to use scatological references "Piss on" & "dip-shit".  MS is
in search of an image remake.  MS now wants you guys to go away and so
have I for a long, long, time.  It is time to move on.  You have been
asked by MS to leave.

> There's a big difference.

> And quite frankly, Microsoft needs ALL the help it can get from those
who
> aren't Microsoft.

And quite frankly, Microsoft has asked you and others to go away and
stop ALL the help you ALL think Microsoft needs.   ALL of those who
are not MS who think you are helping, The MVP's, have been _told_ to
disband by Dec 1 1999.

Join in the MVP wailing on the ZD web site.  Post your comments:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/filters/bursts/0,3422,2378903,00.html


> 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: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         23-Oct-99 01:00:10
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
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?

>>> I wasn't attributing his quote to you.

>> Then why did you put my name after his, Marty?

> To note that you quoted him.

Unnecessary, Marty.

> This is a key point that you apparently missed.

That is a key point whose logic you haven't explained.

>>> I was quoting your act of quoting him.

>> You have the direct quotation, Marty, so no indirect quotation is
necessary.

>>> You'll note that I left the attribution to him intact.

>> And I noted that you added an unnecessary one.

> It was quite necessary.

On what basis do you make that claim, 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

>>> Glad you agree, Dave.

>> Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?

> Still erroneously asking irrelevant questions Dave?

Nothing irrelevant about it, Marty.

>> I didn't indicate any agreement.

> You certainly did.

Where, allegedly?

> By using my argument against me, you are inherently agreeing with it.

You're erroneously presupposing that the quotation represents an argument.
Rather, it represents a question.

> Why would you write something with which you disagreed?

I haven't disagreed with it either, Marty.  I was asking a question,
using your text.

>> I was asking a question using your text for the question.

> And I was making the statement you made in quoting you.

For what purpose, Marty?

> You questioned your own quote as to whether it was something a normal, well
> adjusted, relaxed individual would do.

Incorrect, Marty.  I was questioning your reuse of the quotation.

> You already know my position on the matter,

Yes.  You believe yourself to be a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual.
Despite that, you engaged in an action that you associated with someone who
you claimed is not normal, well adjusted, or relaxed.

> so you are inherently agreeing with me.

Incorrect, Marty.  I'm demonstrating your own hypocrisy.

>>> Having proved my point,

>> How did you allegedly do that, Marty?

> See above.

The above doesn't show how you proved your point, Marty.

>>> I have eliminated the repetition.

>> You haven't eliminated your "infantile game", Marty.

> Which you haven't substantiated Dave.

Incorrect, Marty.

> Why not keep an open mind and retract your charge until it is proven?

You're erroneously presupposing that it hasn't been proven.

> Could it be because you are a blatent hypocrite with a pronounced double
> standard?

No, it couldn't.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     22-Oct-99 18:14:10
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


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

On 10-22-99, 10:39:28 PM, [e-mail] (Mike Timbol) wrote
regarding Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!:
istake.

> 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.

That's the problem Mr Timbol.  I disagree with what you now claim I
said.  I can't and will not be asked to clarify bullshit someone like
yourself posts.     Follow the guidelines for participating in newsgroups.

> 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.


You edited all but one small sentence from my post in your misguided
reply.  If you want to talk about my post then follow the guidelines
for posting and quote the relevant material instead of taking one
sentence out of context.  Stop jerking people around by rephrasing
what they said and bitching at them for the things you infer.




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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     22-Oct-99 18:21:01
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: I agree

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


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

On 10-22-99, 10:33:15 PM, "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]> wrote
regarding I agree:


> MS is being stupid by now letting independent people speak up for
them.

There is a fantasy going on here...MS did not let independent people
speak for MS.  MVP is a program for advocacy.

MS has a PR firm and they have MS spokes people and they have hired
spokes persons and organizations and handelers and ad agencies.  They
control all of these but the advocates, the MVPs. MS wants the
advocates to stop.  MVPs are no longer wanted.

> 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.

I'm not sure what is in your mind right now but if it is that you are
helping MS or Windows then you are dead wrong. MS wants you guys to go
away and stop the FUD.  It is simple - what you are doing is not only
wrong, it is unwanted by those you seek to help


> 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: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                22-Oct-99 22:37:01
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: ...when they killed the Warp 5 client.

From: [e-mail] (Jerry McBride)

I just read this post on an OS/2 mailing list and it deserves the light of day
in a public forum...

I'll stand by my OS/2 commitment, but not to the those that "run the show" at
IBM. The gentleman that posted this message, could probably lead a sucessful
attack on both MicroSloth and IBM main HQ... :') and be back in time for
tea...

---- quote starts here ----

Well, IBM closed today at 91.

That's down $44 since Sept 16, when they killed the Warp 5 client.

Any stockholder or employee who believes that Gerstner's strategy of
"big guys only" makes any sense at all is being proven wrong.

Any stockholder or employee who believes that his strategy of
surrendering the desktop to Microsoft was good for the stockholders is
being proven wrong.

Any stockholder or employee who believes that his strategy of kissing up
to Gates was good business is being proven wrong.

Any stockholder or employee who believes that his strategy of abandoning
technological leadership and relying on support and service only made
sense is being proven wrong.

IBM, who gave us the best desktop Operating System in existence but
couldn't sell it ...

IBM, who gave us SOM and OpenDoc but couldn't develop it ...

IBM, who gave us the ThinkPad but lost a billion dollars in one year
with it's Windows-preloads-only-marketing ...

IBM, who gave us Deep Blue and so much other great technology ...

 ... doesn't deserve to be led by this coward and his clutch of
spineless sub slime-molds (Papows, Casey, Smith, Osborne, Thomas ...).

---- quote end here ----

It's a refreshing perspective. Cheers,

--

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

*            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]             |
\----------------------------------------/

--


--

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

*            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]             |
\----------------------------------------/

--




--

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

*            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]                             23-Oct-99 03:41:10
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7uqbv3$lsr$[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.

> 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.

Irrelevant, given that the alleged game has not been proven to exist.

The logic has run out, so David repeats his mistaken assertion over and
over.

Typical.

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]                             23-Oct-99 03:53:04
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7uqc4q$lsr$[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.
>
> 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.

Again, the alleged game, when only my countering of your illogic is
involved.

A mistaken assertion repeated over and over again, a typical last
resort of the ineffective advocate when the logic has dried up.

Same old Tholen.

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]                                 23-Oct-99 04:02:05
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <[e-mail]>,
Joseph  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On 10-22-99, 10:39:28 PM, [e-mail] (Mike Timbol) wrote
>
>> 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.
>
>That's the problem Mr Timbol.  I disagree with what you now claim I
>said.  I can't and will not be asked to clarify bullshit someone like
>yourself posts.     Follow the guidelines for participating in newsgroups.

  "And you are ? ... The newsgroup policeman?  I don't think so.  If you
   don't like the post then kill it.  Don't play cop -- it's really not
   your business to judge."

   - Joseph Coughlan

If you don't like my posts, please, feel free to take your own advice.

     - Mike

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             23-Oct-99 03:57:24
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7uqe83$nhr$[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.
>
> > He's on the road to recovery.
>
> Typical invective.  Meanwhile, you're continuing your "infantile
game",
> following me around into different threads like a puppy, and Lucien is
> also obviously playing a game, as the evidence below clearly
demonstrates.

On the contrary, I am merely countering your illogic and irrelevant
arguments.

The exchange below is only more repeated irrelevancies and illogic
(from you).

You lose. Again.

Lucien S.

> >> 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.
>
>


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]                                 23-Oct-99 04:52:11
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7ur06d$6bf$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>> Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:
>
>>>> 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.
>
>> Simply because there is a difference between imference and implication
>> does not mean I don't understand the difference.  In this case, Joseph
>> was clearly implying that the OS/2 JDK 1.1.8 is somehow superior,
>> due to JDK 1.2 functionality, than other implementations of JDK 1.1.8.
>> He *did* imply it...
>
>Incorrect, Mike.  You *did* infer it.

Because it was implied, Dave.

>>> 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.
>
>> ....just as you're doing.
>
>Incorrect, Mike.  I'm not implying superiority; you're inferring it.
>Note that I did not use the word "superior" at all.  I simply said
>"does offer less".  A compiler can offer more extensions and still
>be inferior to another compiler, if, for example, it's loaded with
>bugs.

Of course, that means that the first compiler is superior in terms
of number of extensions offered.  It is "somehow superior".  Which is,
of course, exactly what I said.

>You're putting words into my mouth by taking "does offer less"
>and translating that into "inferiority".

It follows logically, Dave.  If one product offers more than another,
then the first product is superior, in terms of what it offers, to
the second.  That is not "putting words into your mouth"; it follows
logically from what you've written.

>Your erroneous inference
>is your problem, Mike, and your erroneous use of "imply" once again
>reinforces my position.

Ah, so if I don't use the exact same words you use, then it's my
inference, and not your implication at all; I see.  Dave, do you even
know what the word "imply" means?  According to you, nothing is ever
implied.

>>>> 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.
>
>> Not so.  I explained why, in context, the claim is incorrect.
>
>Incorrect, Mike.

Quite correct.  Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.
So you deleted it, and repeated your original argument yet again.

>> You deleted that section without comment.  Telling.
>
>How ironic, coming from Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol.  Telling.

Parrotting what I write does not strengthen your argument, Dave.  All it
does is demonstrate that you have nothing of value to add.

>>> The rest is merely your attempt to divert attention away from that issue.
>
>> Since I've demonstrated that JDK 1.1.8 doesn't implement the functionality
>> of JDK 1.2,
>
>On the contrary, you've agreed that it does, Mike:
>
>MT] It supports *some* of it.  Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2.

Do you understand what the word "some" means?  A portion thereof.  "Some
of the functionality of JDK 1.2" is not equal to "the functionality of
JDK 1.2".

>> the rest is my attempt to determine what, if any, features
>> from JDK 1.2 actually *are* implemented.
>
>Why would you need to do that, Mike, having agreed that it implements
>some of the functionality?  Joseph made no claims about specifics.

Specific information is more useful than general information, is it not?
I see you're arguing for the sake of argument, and aren't actually
interested in learning anything about the claims you're making.

>> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes Java 2 security classes.
>
>That's because it does, Mike.

   New to this release are security enhancements based on the Java 2
   security model; ...

Note that IBM no longer refers to them as "Java 2 security classes".  They
are not.

>> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes the Java 2 versions of Swing.
>
>That's because it does, Mike.

   ...Swing, Supported by IBM; ...

Note that they do not refer to it as "the Java 2 version of Swing".
It is not.

>> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes "Java 2 versions" of RMI/IIOP and
>> the COMM API.
>
>That's because it does, Mike.

   ...RMI-IIOP, Supported by IBM; and the Java COMM API for OS/2
   providing serial and parallel device support and enabling JavaPOS
   and JavaXFS.

Note that they do not refer to them as "the Java 2 versions of
RMIM-IIOP and the Java COMM API".  They are not.

>> All of your claims are wrong.
>
>Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise, Mike.

The article you refer to is incorrect and out of date, and also does not
state what you think it does.  I've presented the more accurate, up to date
description, which you've ignored.

What's laughable is that IBM has corrected and updated their information,
yet you continue to cling to and defend the earlier, incorrect information.
That's pretty pathetic.

>But even if true, does that someone make Joseph's statement wrong?

I believe it does, and I've explained why.  You didn't address my explanation
at all.  You (and Joseph) believe his statement is completely correct,
since you feel that "implements JDK 1.2 functionality" implies "some".
You're welcome to believe what you like.

In any case, I've clarified what the JDK does and does not include --
it clearly does not include the functionality of JDK 1.2.  Fortunately,
IBM's JDK 1.2 is scheduled to be available for OS/2 in "Early 2000",
and it *will* implement JDK 1.2 functionality.  Of course, IBM's
JDK 1.2 for Windows is scheduled to be released "Late 4Q 1999".

"Premiere platform" indeed.

>>>> 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, Dave, I am absolutely certain that you don't know what you're
>> talking about.  And you are proving my point with every post you make.
>
>In reality, you're proving your illogic with every post you make.

Interestingly, you base your "reality" on an incorrect and outdated
press release, while refusing to address the current, updated description.
Clinging to the past will get you nowhere.

     - Mike


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         23-Oct-99 05:25:00
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

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.

>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word
>> DT] analogous 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
>> DT] the time of that thread.
>> DT]
>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>> DT] playing a game, there should be no doubt now.

> Irrelevant, given that the alleged game has not been proven to exist.

Incorrect; see above for the evidence.

> The logic has run out,

You haven't used any yet.

> so David repeats his mistaken assertion over and over.

What allegedly mistaken assertion, Lucien?

> Typical.

Typical that you would play a game, in which you claim evidence
for the present situation is in a thread from years ago.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         23-Oct-99 05:27:23
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

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
>> DT] analogous 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
>> DT] the time of that thread.
>> DT]
>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>> DT] playing a game, there should be no doubt now.

> Again, the alleged game,

Again, the proven game.

> when only my countering of your illogic is involved.

Where did you allegedly counter my alleged illogic, Lucien?  You're
the one who think the word analogous to "prevent" in the present
situation is in a thread from years ago.  Too bad you've got your
chronology backwards.

> A mistaken assertion repeated over and over again,

What allegedly mistaken assertion, Lucien?

> a typical last resort of the ineffective advocate

Yeah, that's exactly what you're doing.

> when the logic has dried up.

Yeah, your logic has dried up.

> Same old Tholen.

Same old Lucien.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                        23-Oct-99 05:39:06
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:381057ad$2$obot$[e-mail]...
| On <SEQP3.680$[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!

You obviously have no idea.  From your postings you sound more like a
front-line tech or a NOC-drive type.  When you learn how to make systems
work, come back.  The trademark of a good Systems Engineer is making things
work, not complaining that they are broken.  I'm making Windows9x and
WindowsNT system work every day.  The fact that you seem to be unable to
make them work is not a plus in your favor.

-B


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         23-Oct-99 05:33:07
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>> 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.

>>> He's on the road to recovery.

>> Typical invective.  Meanwhile, you're continuing your "infantile
>> game", following me around into different threads like a puppy, and
>> Lucien is also obviously playing a game, as the evidence below clearly
>> demonstrates.

> On the contrary, I am merely countering your illogic and irrelevant
> arguments.

What alleged illogic and irrelevant arguments of mine, Lucien?

> The exchange below is only more repeated irrelevancies and illogic
> (from you).

Incorrect, Lucien.  The exchange below demonstrates your illogic,
given that you tried to use something that occurred before the
present situation as evidence for a word that allegedly appears
in the present situation.

> You lose. Again.

Pontification doesn't work on me, Lucien.  Neither do time warps.

>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>> DT] playing 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
>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>> DT] playing 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
>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>> DT] playing 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
>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>> DT] playing 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
>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>> DT] playing 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
>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>> DT] playing 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
>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>> DT] 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?

>>>>> See above.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word
>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>> DT] playing 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
>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>> DT] playing 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
>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>> DT] playing 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
>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>> DT] playing 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
>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>> DT] playing a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>>> How ironic,
>>>>>> coming from someone dealt a punishing defeat.

>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word
>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>
>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>> DT]
>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>> DT] playing 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]                        23-Oct-99 05:41:10
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Stephen S. Edwards II <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:7uqths$dsh$[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!

Here, here!  I never thought I'd dislike arguing with anyone more than I
dislike arguing with Matt.  I was wrong.  =(

Who brought the OS/2 advocacy here anyway?

-B


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

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

From: [e-mail]                        23-Oct-99 05:44:20
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Stephen S. Edwards II <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:7uqtbs$dsh$[e-mail]...
| Bob Germer <[e-mail]> writes:
|
[snip]
|
| : 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...

Thanks!

|
| : 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.

Just give up on him, Stephen.  I have too much in my life to worry about.  I
don't need to, and won't, let this guy get under my skin.  Just leave him in
his deluded universe and get on with some meaningful and educational
discussion elsewhere.

-B


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

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

From: [e-mail]                        23-Oct-99 05:49:22
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:38105861$3$obot$[e-mail]...
| On <7uoqnd$ka7$[e-mail]>, on 10/22/99 at 05:54 PM,
|    "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]> said:
|
[snip]
| > 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?

This is total BS.  Windows finds a new device, Windows learns the device's
name from the device, then Windows asks for the manufacturer provided driver
disk.  I must have done this 100 times.

The only departure from this process that I have ever witnessed is when the
manufacturer puts the Windows drivers in a subdirectory on the mfg'r
provided media, then asks if you want to use another driver (normally a
generic Windows driver).  You simply say no, go back one step and browse the
mfg'r provided media for the Win9(x) or WinNT subdirectory.

If you are using the Windows generic driver instead of the mfg'r provided
driver, that would be your problem.

However, you don't care to hear how you might actually make the system work.
You only want to blame your problems on MS.  Therefore, I present this
posting to Hobbyist and anyone else who might possibly be mislead by your
mindless dribble.

-B


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         23-Oct-99 06:08:11
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 04:42:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>> Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:

>>>>> 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.

>>> Simply because there is a difference between imference and implication
>>> does not mean I don't understand the difference.  In this case, Joseph
>>> was clearly implying that the OS/2 JDK 1.1.8 is somehow superior,
>>> due to JDK 1.2 functionality, than other implementations of JDK 1.1.8.
>>> He *did* imply it...

>> Incorrect, Mike.  You *did* infer it.

> Because it was implied, Dave.

Balderdash, Mike.  How did you manage to get inside Joseph's head to
know what he intended?

>>>> 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.

>>> ....just as you're doing.

>> Incorrect, Mike.  I'm not implying superiority; you're inferring it.
>> Note that I did not use the word "superior" at all.  I simply said
>> "does offer less".  A compiler can offer more extensions and still
>> be inferior to another compiler, if, for example, it's loaded with
>> bugs.

> Of course, that means that the first compiler is superior in terms
> of number of extensions offered.

You didn't accuse me of calling it "superior in numbers of extensions
offered", Mike.  You accused me of calling it "superior".  I did not,
and now you're trying to change the wording in a feeble attempt to
save face again, given your failed inference.

> It is "somehow superior".

That's your inference, Mike, not my implication.  But since you've
admitted that it is "somehow superior", what's your complaint?  By
telling Joseph that he is wrong, you're complaining that it is not
"somehow superior".  Do make up your mind, Mike.

> Which is, of course, exactly what I said.

It's easy to correctly infer your own implication, Mike.  However,
it is not exactly what I said.  I did not imply it.  You inferred
it, erroneously.

>> You're putting words into my mouth by taking "does offer less"
>> and translating that into "inferiority".

> It follows logically, Dave.

How ironic, coming from the person who fails to understand how
"some" follows logically from a product that uses a previous
version number.

> If one product offers more than another, then the first product is
> superior, in terms of what it offers, to the second.

That's your inference, Mike, not my implication.  But since you've
admitted that it is "somehow superior", what's your complaint?  By
telling Joseph that he is wrong, you're complaining that it is not
"somehow superior".  Do make up your mind, Mike.

> That is not "putting words into your mouth";

Yes it is, Mike, given that I did not say those words.

> it follows logically from what you've written.

How ironic, coming from the person who fails to understand how
"some" follows logically from a product that uses a previous
version number.

>> Your erroneous inference is your problem, Mike, and your erroneous
>> use of "imply" once again reinforces my position.

> Ah, so if I don't use the exact same words you use, then it's my
> inference, and not your implication at all; I see.

I never said anything about "exact same words", Mike.  Yet another
failed inference on your part.

> Dave, do you even know what the word "imply" means?

Obviously, given that I am using it correctly.  Meanwhile, you have
used it incorrectly.

> According to you, nothing is ever implied.

Where did I say that, Mike?  Yet another failed inference on your part.

>>>>> 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.

>>> Not so.  I explained why, in context, the claim is incorrect.

>> Incorrect, Mike.

> Quite correct.

Balderdash, Mike.

> Why didn't you address that section?

I did address that section, Mike.

> Because you couldn't.

Where have you been, Mike?   I did.

> So you deleted it,

I never deleted that section, Mike, but that's a rather ironic complaint,
coming from Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol.

> and repeated your original argument yet again.

You haven't comprehended the original argument yet.  Or maybe you did,
realized you lost, and decided to divert attention away from it.

>>> You deleted that section without comment.  Telling.

>> How ironic, coming from Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol.  Telling.

> Parrotting what I write does not strengthen your argument, Dave.

It does demonstrate your hypocrisy, Mike.  My argument is already
sufficiently strong.

> All it does is demonstrate that you have nothing of value to add.

Demonstrating your hypocrisy adds value, Mike.

>>>> The rest is merely your attempt to divert attention away from that issue.

>>> Since I've demonstrated that JDK 1.1.8 doesn't implement the functionality
>>> of JDK 1.2,

>> On the contrary, you've agreed that it does, Mike:
>>
>> MT] It supports *some* of it.  Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2.

> Do you understand what the word "some" means?

Obviously, Mike.

> A portion thereof.

Oerfectly consistent with what I've been saying all along.

> "Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2" is not equal to "the functionality
> of JDK 1.2".

Irrelevant, Mike, given that the statement in question is "Java 1.2
functionality.  Quit twisting the words around.  In the real case,
"Java 1.2 functionality" and "some Java 1.2 functionality" are
logically equivalent, because it is illogical to give the product
the version number 1.1.8 if it implements "all" of the Java 1.2
functionality.  You have yet to counter that logic, Mike.

>>> the rest is my attempt to determine what, if any, features
>>> from JDK 1.2 actually *are* implemented.

>> Why would you need to do that, Mike, having agreed that it implements
>> some of the functionality?  Joseph made no claims about specifics.

> Specific information is more useful than general information, is it
> not?

Not in this case, Mike.

> I see you're arguing for the sake of argument,

How ironic, coming from the person arguing for the sake of argument,
as evidenced by the fact that you're using the same old arguments
over and over, failing to comprehend the counterarguments along the
way.

> and aren't actually interested in learning anything about the claims
> you're making.

How ironic, coming from the person who isn't actually interested in
learning about the illogic of calling something 1.1.8 that happens
to implement "all" of 1.2.

>>> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes Java 2 security classes.

>> That's because it does, Mike.

> New to this release are security enhancements based on the Java 2
> security model; ...

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,

> Note that IBM no longer refers to them as "Java 2 security classes".
> They are not.

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

>>> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes the Java 2 versions of Swing.

>> That's because it does, Mike.

> ...Swing, Supported by IBM; ...

] 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 that they do not refer to it as "the Java 2 version of Swing".

They refer to it as:

] functions from Sun's Java 2 technology

> It is not.

You claimed that it requires new features that aren't in 1.1.8, Mike.
Obviously there is something new to Swing in Java 2.

>>> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes "Java 2 versions" of RMI/IIOP and
>>> the COMM API.

>> That's because it does, Mike.

> ...RMI-IIOP, Supported by IBM; and the Java COMM API for OS/2
> providing serial and parallel device support and enabling JavaPOS
> and JavaXFS.

] 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 that they do not refer to them as "the Java 2 versions of
> RMIM-IIOP and the Java COMM API".

They refer to them as:

] functions from Sun's Java 2 technology

> They are not.

Prove it, Mike.

>>> All of your claims are wrong.

>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise, Mike.

> The article you refer to is incorrect

Typical Timbol pontification.

> and out of date,

Prove it, Mike.

> and also does not state what you think it does.

It states what I've quoted, Mike.  I happen to think it states what I've
quoted.  Thus it does state what I think it does, so you are therefore
wrong once again.

> I've presented the more accurate, up to date description, which you've
> ignored.

I've ignored your unsubstantiated pontification, Mike.

> What's laughable is that IBM has corrected and updated their information,

Yet more pontification.

> yet you continue to cling to and defend the earlier,

Which is referenceable document, as opposed to your pontification.

> incorrect information.

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> That's pretty pathetic.

Your pontification is pretty pathetic, Mike.  So is your reasoning.

>> But even if true, does that someone make Joseph's statement wrong?

> I believe it does,

What you believe is irrelevant, Mike.

> and I've explained why.

Illogically.  You've admitted that it contains "some" Java 1.2
functionality, thus Joseph is right, given that he did not say
"all" functionality.

> You didn't address my explanation at all.

Incorrect, Mike.  Meanwhile, you haven't addressed the reasoning
expressed in my previous paragraph.

> You (and Joseph) believe his statement is completely correct,

That's because it is, Mike, and you've admitted that it contains
"some" Java 1.2.

> since you feel that "implements JDK 1.2 functionality" implies "some".

I've demonstrated that it is logical to rule out "all".  That leaves
"some" as the only remaining option, Mike.

> You're welcome to believe what you like.

My belief is irrelevant, Mike.  My logical reasoning is relevant.

> In any case, I've clarified what the JDK does and does not include

Incorrect, Mike.

> -- it clearly does not include the functionality of JDK 1.2.

It clearly does include JDK 1.2 functionality, Mike.  You've admitted
that it contains "some".

> Fortunately, IBM's JDK 1.2 is scheduled to be available for OS/2 in
> "Early 2000",

Irrelevant, Mike, given that we're not discussing that.  Typical
Timbol diversionary tactic.

> and it *will* implement JDK 1.2 functionality.

1.1.8  already does, Mike.

> Of course, IBM's JDK 1.2 for Windows is scheduled to be released
> "Late 4Q 1999".

Irrelevant, Mike, given that we're not discussing that.  Typical
Timbol diversionary tactic.

> "Premiere platform" indeed.

The fastest around.

>>>>> 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, Dave, I am absolutely certain that you don't know what you're
>>> talking about.  And you are proving my point with every post you make.

>> In reality, you're proving your illogic with every post you make.

> Interestingly, you base your "reality" on an incorrect and outdated
> press release,

Prove it, Mike.

> while refusing to address the current, updated description.

You haven't pointed to any document, Mike.  All we have is your
usual pontification.

> Clinging to the past will get you nowhere.

Pontificating will get you nowhere.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 23-Oct-99 08:18:04
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 10:32:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7urjcn$ivu$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>> Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>> Simply because there is a difference between imference and implication
>>>> does not mean I don't understand the difference.  In this case, Joseph
>>>> was clearly implying that the OS/2 JDK 1.1.8 is somehow superior,
>>>> due to JDK 1.2 functionality, than other implementations of JDK 1.1.8.
>>>> He *did* imply it...
>
>>> Incorrect, Mike.  You *did* infer it.
>
>> Because it was implied, Dave.
>
>Balderdash, Mike.  How did you manage to get inside Joseph's head to
>know what he intended?

"Implied" does not mean "intended".  Go look up the word.

>>>>> 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.
>
>>>> ....just as you're doing.
>
>>> Incorrect, Mike.  I'm not implying superiority; you're inferring it.
>>> Note that I did not use the word "superior" at all.  I simply said
>>> "does offer less".  A compiler can offer more extensions and still
>>> be inferior to another compiler, if, for example, it's loaded with
>>> bugs.
>
>> Of course, that means that the first compiler is superior in terms
>> of number of extensions offered.
>
>You didn't accuse me of calling it "superior in numbers of extensions
>offered", Mike.  You accused me of calling it "superior".

No, Dave, I said that you implied it was "somehow superior" which is
exactly what you did.

>> It is "somehow superior".  Which is, of course, exactly what I said.
>
>It's easy to correctly infer your own implication, Mike.  However,
>it is not exactly what I said.  I did not imply it.

Again, you do not seem to understand what the word "imply" means.  It
does not mean "what the writer intended" nor "exactly what the author
wrote".

>>> You're putting words into my mouth by taking "does offer less"
>>> and translating that into "inferiority".
>
>> It follows logically, Dave.  If one product offers more than another,
>> then the first product is superior, in terms of what it offers, to the
>> second.
>
>That's your inference, Mike, not my implication.

If one product offers more features than another, that implies that the
first product is superior, in terms of features, than the second.  It
logically follows.  That's the implication of what you wrote.  You
implied it.  Go look up the word.

>> That is not "putting words into your mouth";
>
>Yes it is, Mike, given that I did not say those words.

I didn't say you did.  If you had said those exact words, then that
wouldn't be an implication.

>> it follows logically from what you've written.
>
>How ironic, coming from the person who fails to understand how
>"some" follows logically from a product that uses a previous
>version number.

On the contrary, the point of the post in question was that functionality
could not be determined from version numbers.

>>> Your erroneous inference is your problem, Mike, and your erroneous
>>> use of "imply" once again reinforces my position.
>
>> Ah, so if I don't use the exact same words you use, then it's my
>> inference, and not your implication at all; I see.  Dave, do you even
>> know what the word "imply" means?
>
>Obviously, given that I am using it correctly.

No, you are not.  You apparently have the mistaken impression that to
know what someone is implying requires mind-reading skills.  Go pick
up a dictionary.

>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>> Not so.  I explained why, in context, the claim is incorrect.
>
>>> Incorrect, Mike.
>
>> Quite correct.  Why didn't you address that section?  Because you
>> couldn't.  So you deleted it,
>
>I never deleted that section, Mike

Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
so short -- you deleted most of my post.

>> and repeated your original argument yet again.
>
>You haven't comprehended the original argument yet.  Or maybe you did,
>realized you lost, and decided to divert attention away from it.

Your original argument is that "implements JDK 1.2 functionality" implies
"some".  I've comprehended that argument and I disagree.  If you claim
that "Product X implements JDK 1.2 functionality", people expect that
the functionality of JDK 1.2 is implemented.

>>>>> The rest is merely your attempt to divert attention away from that
issue.
>
>>>> Since I've demonstrated that JDK 1.1.8 doesn't implement the
functionality
>>>> of JDK 1.2,
>
>>> On the contrary, you've agreed that it does, Mike:
>>>
>>> MT] It supports *some* of it.  Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2.
>
>> Do you understand what the word "some" means?  A portion thereof.
>> "Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2" is not equal to "the functionality
>> of JDK 1.2".
>
>Irrelevant, Mike, given that the statement in question is "Java 1.2
>functionality.  Quit twisting the words around.  In the real case,
>"Java 1.2 functionality" and "some Java 1.2 functionality" are
>logically equivalent, because it is illogical to give the product
>the version number 1.1.8 if it implements "all" of the Java 1.2
>functionality.  You have yet to counter that logic, Mike.

On the contrary, I counter it by pointing you back to the point of
the original post.  The point of the original post was to compare
functionality, not version numbers.  Since that's the point, then
you can't use version numbers to determine functionality in the
examples presented.

>>>> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes Java 2 security classes.
>
>>> That's because it does, Mike.
>
>>   New to this release are security enhancements based on the Java 2
>>   security model; ...
>
>] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,

As I stated, your newsgroup article is outdated, published before
JDK 1.1.8 was released.  It is superceded by IBM's current description,
which I have quoted.

>> Note that IBM no longer refers to them as "Java 2 security classes".
>> They are not.
>
>On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

The basis of the quote above.

>>>> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes the Java 2 versions of Swing.
>
>>> That's because it does, Mike.
>
>> ...Swing, Supported by IBM; ...
>
>] 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.

As I stated, your newsgroup article is outdated, published before
JDK 1.1.8 was released.  It is superceded by IBM's current description.
Repeating it does you no good.

>> Note that they do not refer to it as "the Java 2 version of Swing".
>
>They refer to it as:
>
>] functions from Sun's Java 2 technology

No, they don't.  They claimed that the JDK implements selected functions
from Sun's Java 2 technology.  Nowhere did they claim that Swing was
one of those functions.  You inferred that from the press release.

>> It is not.
>
>You claimed that it requires new features that aren't in 1.1.8, Mike.
>Obviously there is something new to Swing in Java 2.

There *is* something new to Swing in Java 2.  Those features are not
implemented in Swing for IBM's JDK 1.1.8.  Why is this so confusing
for you?

>>>> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes "Java 2 versions" of RMI/IIOP and
>>>> the COMM API.
>
>>> That's because it does, Mike.
>
>> ...RMI-IIOP, Supported by IBM; and the Java COMM API for OS/2
>> providing serial and parallel device support and enabling JavaPOS
>> and JavaXFS.
>
>] 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.

Again, repeating an out of date description does you no good.

>> Note that they do not refer to them as "the Java 2 versions of
>> RMIM-IIOP and the Java COMM API".
>
>They refer to them as:
>
>] functions from Sun's Java 2 technology

No, they don't.  That's your incorrect interpretation.

>> They are not.
>
>Prove it, Mike.

I already have, Dave.  Here, have some more quotes:

   http://www.ibm.com/java/jdk/rmi-iiop/faq.html#0000

   How do I get the RMI-IIOP reference implementation?
   First Customer Ship (FCS) of the RMI-IIOP reference implementation
   for Windows and Solaris was in June 1999

Since Java 2 was released in 1998, RMI-IIOP was obviously not in it.

   http://java.sun.com/products/javacomm/javadocs/CommAPI_FAQ.txt

   Java(tm) Communications API FAQ

   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.

Gee, since Sun explicitly states that it will not be part of the core
JDK, it obviously isn't in Java 2, either.

>>>> All of your claims are wrong.
>
>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise, Mike.
>
>> The article you refer to is incorrect and out of date,
>
>Prove it, Mike.

It was posted on June 12, 1999.  JDK 1.1.8 was made available in August
of 1999.  Your reference is superceded by the actual release.

>> and also does not state what you think it does.
>
>It states what I've quoted, Mike.  I happen to think it states what I've
>quoted.  Thus it does state what I think it does, so you are therefore
>wrong once again.

On the contrary, you think it states that "the Java 2 versions" of
several features are included, when it states no such thing.

>> I've presented the more accurate, up to date description, which you've
>> ignored.
>
>I've ignored your unsubstantiated pontification, Mike.

My claims are based on the desription from IBM.  It's more recent
than your outdated newsgroup article.

>> What's laughable is that IBM has corrected and updated their information,
>> yet you continue to cling to and defend the earlier,
>
>Which is referenceable document, as opposed to your pontification.

My "pontification", as you call it, is IBM's own description of JDK 1.1.8 --
The shipping version, not the Preview version.


>> incorrect information.  That's pretty pathetic.
>
>Your pontification is pretty pathetic, Mike.  So is your reasoning.

Yet you cannot counter it, except to call it "pontification".

>>> But even if true, does that someone make Joseph's statement wrong?
>
>> I believe it does, and I've explained why.  You didn't address my
>> explanation at all.  You (and Joseph) believe his statement is
>> completely correct, since you feel that "implements JDK 1.2
>> functionality" implies "some".
>
>I've demonstrated that it is logical to rule out "all".

No, you have not.  Your argument relies on the version number, when
the point of the post was not to use the version number.

>> Fortunately, IBM's JDK 1.2 is scheduled to be available for OS/2 in
>> "Early 2000", and it *will* implement JDK 1.2 functionality.  Of course,
>> IBM's JDK 1.2 for Windows is scheduled to be released "Late 4Q 1999".
>
>Irrelevant, Mike, given that we're not discussing that.

We're discussing JDK 1.2 functionality.  I'm letting you know when it
will be available from IBM.  I'm sure they'll do a good job.

>> "Premiere platform" indeed.
>
>The fastest around.

I see you are demonstrating your ignorance once again.  In most areas,
IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for Windows is faster than their JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2, as
shown by IBM's own tests.

>>>>>> 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, Dave, I am absolutely certain that you don't know what you're
>>>> talking about.  And you are proving my point with every post you make.
>
>>> In reality, you're proving your illogic with every post you make.
>
>> Interestingly, you base your "reality" on an incorrect and outdated
>> press release, while refusing to address the current, updated description.
>
>You haven't pointed to any document, Mike.

I've quoted a document.  It's on IBM's web site.  What's the matter, you
couldn't find it?

>> Clinging to the past will get you nowhere.
>
>Pontificating will get you nowhere.

Quoting IBM is not "pontificating".

     - Mike


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         23-Oct-99 08:46:16
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 10:32:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

> I'll just reply to both articles here, to avoid too much repetition...

You can do better than that, Mike.  Why not simply invoke your usual
deletion tactic and get rid of *all* the repetition?  In fact, why
not simply address the original issue?

Fact # 1:  Joseph said that 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.
Fact # 2:  That could be interpreted to mean either "some" or "all"
           of the functionality.
Fact # 3:  You claimed that Joseph is wrong.
Fact # 4:  IBM explicitly used 1.1.8 as the version number, not 1.2.
Fact # 5:  It is illogical to use the older version number if your
           product supports all of the functionality of the newer
           version number.
Fact # 6:  Fact #5 allows you to eliminate "all" from the list of
           possible interpretations of Joseph's statement.
Fact # 7:  That leaves "some" as the only logical interpretation
           of Joseph's statement.
Fact # 8:  You admitted that 1.1.8 implements some of the Java 1.2
           functionality.
Fact # 9:  You are therefore in agreement with the only logical
           interpretation of Joseph's statement.
Fact #10:  Facts #3 and #9 contradict one another.  Both cannot
           be right.
Fact #11:  I claimed that you are wrong.
Fact #12:  Fact #10 proves my claim.

> Incorrect; "Java 1.2 functionality" refers to the sum of features of
> Java 1.2.

Illogical.  See Facts #4 and #5.

> Once again, all you're doing is restating your argument, not adding any
> substance.

How ironic, coming from someone merely restating his argument, not
adding any substance.

>> Read the rest of the article, Mike.

> I did, Dave.

You said you couldn't find it, Mike.  Do make up your mind.

>> Some lines up you claimed that Swing for 1.1.8 has identical
>> functionality to Swing for 1.2,

> Bullshit.  I never claimed that at all.

Liar:

MT] They provide the same functionality and they implement the same API.

> My mind is made up, and my argument is consistent.

See Fact #10, Mike.

> You cannot use the message-ID of an article to find it with deja.com,
> Dave.

You don't need the message ID, Mike.  I certainly didn't.

> Since all you had provided was the message-ID, there was no way
> to find the article in question.

Liar:

I provided a relevant quotation.

Now, how long will it take you to divert attention away from the
original issue again?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         23-Oct-99 09:36:13
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 10:32:22
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:

>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>> Simply because there is a difference between imference and implication
>>>>> does not mean I don't understand the difference.  In this case, Joseph
>>>>> was clearly implying that the OS/2 JDK 1.1.8 is somehow superior,
>>>>> due to JDK 1.2 functionality, than other implementations of JDK 1.1.8.
>>>>> He *did* imply it...

>>>> Incorrect, Mike.  You *did* infer it.

>>> Because it was implied, Dave.

>> Balderdash, Mike.  How did you manage to get inside Joseph's head to
>> know what he intended?

>" Implied" does not mean "intended".  Go look up the word.

Irrelevant, Mike.  I didn't claim that "implied" means "intended".
Once again, you're trying to divert attention away from one of your
common failures.

>>>>>> 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.

>>>>> ....just as you're doing.

>>>> Incorrect, Mike.  I'm not implying superiority; you're inferring it.
>>>> Note that I did not use the word "superior" at all.  I simply said
>>>> "does offer less".  A compiler can offer more extensions and still
>>>> be inferior to another compiler, if, for example, it's loaded with
>>>> bugs.

>>> Of course, that means that the first compiler is superior in terms
>>> of number of extensions offered.

>> You didn't accuse me of calling it "superior in numbers of extensions
>> offered", Mike.  You accused me of calling it "superior".

> No, Dave, I said that you implied it was "somehow superior" which is
> exactly what you did.

Liar:  Exactly what I did was say it can offer more extensions.  I did
not use the word "superior" at all.

>>> It is "somehow superior".  Which is, of course, exactly what I said.

>> It's easy to correctly infer your own implication, Mike.  However,
>> it is not exactly what I said.  I did not imply it.

> Again, you do not seem to understand what the word "imply" means.

Hor ironic, coming from the person who does not understand what the
word "imply" means.

> It does not mean "what the writer intended" nor "exactly what the
> author wrote".

Irrelevant, given that I did not claim that it means "what the writer
intended" or "exactly what the author wrote".  Once again, you're
trying to divert attention away from one of your common failures.

>>>> You're putting words into my mouth by taking "does offer less"
>>>> and translating that into "inferiority".

>>> It follows logically, Dave.  If one product offers more than another,
>>> then the first product is superior, in terms of what it offers, to the
>>> second.

>> That's your inference, Mike, not my implication.

> If one product offers more features than another, that implies that the
> first product is superior,

On the contrary, you infer that the first product is superior.  I imply
that the first product has more features.

> in terms of features, than the second.

Numbers do not necessarily imply superiority, Mike.  Note my correct
usage of the word "imply".

> It logically follows.

Timbologic, as opposed to real logic.

> That's the implication of what you wrote.

Incorrect; it's your inference, Mike.

> You implied it.

Incorrect; you inferred it.

> Go look up the word.

Practice what you preach, Mike.

>>> That is not "putting words into your mouth";

>> Yes it is, Mike, given that I did not say those words.

> I didn't say you did.

You falsely accused me of implying those words.

> If you had said those exact words, then that wouldn't be an implication.

Are you really trying to suggest that you can toss out any words that
I didn't say and accuse me of implying those words, Mike?

>>> it follows logically from what you've written.

>> How ironic, coming from the person who fails to understand how
>> "some" follows logically from a product that uses a previous
>> version number.

> On the contrary, the point of the post in question was that functionality
> could not be determined from version numbers.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Mike?  I wasn't talking about
the point of your post.  I was talking about your claim that Joseph is
wrong.  He is not; 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.

>>>> Your erroneous inference is your problem, Mike, and your erroneous
>>>> use of "imply" once again reinforces my position.

>>> Ah, so if I don't use the exact same words you use, then it's my
>>> inference, and not your implication at all; I see.  Dave, do you even
>>> know what the word "imply" means?

>> Obviously, given that I am using it correctly.

> No, you are not.

Prove it, Mike.

> You apparently have the mistaken impression that to know what someone
> is implying requires mind-reading skills.

What appears to you is irrelevant, Mike.  The facts are relevant.

> Go pick up a dictionary.

Practice what you preach, Mike.

>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>> Not so.  I explained why, in context, the claim is incorrect.

>>>> Incorrect, Mike.

>>> Quite correct.  Why didn't you address that section?  Because you
>>> couldn't.  So you deleted it,

>> I never deleted that section, Mike

> Of course you did.

Balderdash, Mike.

> That's why your response to my post to Joseph was so short -- you
> deleted most of my post.

That's not the section in question, Mike.  The section in question is
where I allegedly "started spewing forth all sorts of crap about what
he thinks IBM meant."  Having trouble following the discussion, Mike?

>>> and repeated your original argument yet again.

>> You haven't comprehended the original argument yet.  Or maybe you did,
>> realized you lost, and decided to divert attention away from it.

> Your original argument is that "implements JDK 1.2 functionality" implies
> "some".

Incorrect, Mike.  Note how you've omitted the crucial reference to 1.1.8.
Here's my real original argument:

Fact # 1:  Joseph said that 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality
           (note how I included the crucial reference to 1.1.8).
Fact # 2:  That could be interpreted to mean either "some" or "all"
           of the functionality.
Fact # 3:  You claimed that Joseph is wrong.
Fact # 4:  IBM explicitly used 1.1.8 as the version number, not 1.2.
Fact # 5:  It is illogical to use the older version number if your
           product supports all of the functionality of the newer
           version number.
Fact # 6:  Fact #5 allows you to eliminate "all" from the list of
           possible interpretations of Joseph's statement.
Fact # 7:  That leaves "some" as the only logical interpretation
           of Joseph's statement.
Fact # 8:  You admitted that 1.1.8 implements some of the Java 1.2
           functionality.
Fact # 9:  You are therefore in agreement with the only logical
           interpretation of Joseph's statement.
Fact #10:  Facts #3 and #9 contradict one another.  Both cannot
           be right.
Fact #11:  I claimed that you are wrong.
Fact #12:  Fact #10 proves my claim.

> I've comprehended that argument

Obviously not, Mike, given your incorrect recollection of my original
argument above.

> and I disagree.

See facts #1 through #12, Mike.

> If you claim that "Product X implements JDK 1.2 functionality", people
> expect that the functionality of JDK 1.2 is implemented.

See facts #4 and #5, Mike.

>>>>>> The rest is merely your attempt to divert attention away from that
issue.

>>>>> Since I've demonstrated that JDK 1.1.8 doesn't implement the
functionality
>>>>> of JDK 1.2,

>>>> On the contrary, you've agreed that it does, Mike:
>>>>
>>>> MT] It supports *some* of it.  Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2.

>>> Do you understand what the word "some" means?  A portion thereof.
>>> "Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2" is not equal to "the functionality
>>> of JDK 1.2".

>> Irrelevant, Mike, given that the statement in question is "Java 1.2
>> functionality.  Quit twisting the words around.  In the real case,
>> "Java 1.2 functionality" and "some Java 1.2 functionality" are
>> logically equivalent, because it is illogical to give the product
>> the version number 1.1.8 if it implements "all" of the Java 1.2
>> functionality.  You have yet to counter that logic, Mike.

> On the contrary, I counter it by pointing you back to the point of
> the original post.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Mike?  I wasn't talking about
the point of your post.  I was talking about your claim that Joseph is
wrong.  He is not; 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.

> The point of the original post was to compare functionality, not
> version numbers.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Mike?  I wasn't talking about
the point of your post.  I was talking about your claim that Joseph is
wrong.  He is not; 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.

> Since that's the point, then you can't use version numbers to determine
> functionality in the examples presented.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Mike?  I wasn't talking about
the point of your post.  I was talking about your claim that Joseph is
wrong.  He is not; 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.

>>>>> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes Java 2 security classes.

>>>> That's because it does, Mike.

>>>   New to this release are security enhancements based on the Java 2
>>>   security model; ...

>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,

> As I stated, your newsgroup article is outdated,

Prove it, Mike.

> published before JDK 1.1.8 was released.

It was published at the same time as the preview was released, Mike.
Here are you are, going off on a diversion again.

> It is superceded by IBM's current description, which I have quoted.

Exactly where did that quotation come from, Mike?

>>> Note that IBM no longer refers to them as "Java 2 security classes".
>>> They are not.

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> The basis of the quote above.

Exactly where did that quotation come from, Mike?

>>>>> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes the Java 2 versions of Swing.

>>>> That's because it does, Mike.

>>> ...Swing, Supported by IBM; ...

>> ] 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.

> As I stated, your newsgroup article is outdated,

Prove it, Mike.

> published before JDK 1.1.8 was released.

It was published at the same time as the preview was released, Mike.
Here are you are, going off on a diversion again.

> It is superceded by IBM's current description.
> Repeating it does you no good.

How ironic, coming from somebody repeating himself.  It won't do you
any good, Mike.

>>> Note that they do not refer to it as "the Java 2 version of Swing".

>> They refer to it as:
>>
>> ] functions from Sun's Java 2 technology

> No, they don't.

Liar.  Read the article.

> They claimed that the JDK implements selected functions
> from Sun's Java 2 technology.

You just contradicted yourself, Mike.

> Nowhere did they claim that Swing was one of those functions.

Note the use of the plural, Mike:  functions.

> You inferred that from the press release.

You should have said "the press release implied it", to be consistent
with your previous argument, Mike.

>>> It is not.

>> You claimed that it requires new features that aren't in 1.1.8, Mike.
>> Obviously there is something new to Swing in Java 2.

> There *is* something new to Swing in Java 2.

Then why do you insist that it's not a Java 2 function, Mike?

> Those features are not implemented in Swing for IBM's JDK 1.1.8.

Prove it, Mike.

> Why is this so confusing for you?

I'm not confused, Mike.  I simply know better than to fall for your
pontification.

>>>>> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes "Java 2 versions" of RMI/IIOP and
>>>>> the COMM API.

>>>> That's because it does, Mike.

>>> ...RMI-IIOP, Supported by IBM; and the Java COMM API for OS/2
>>> providing serial and parallel device support and enabling JavaPOS
>>> and JavaXFS.

>> ] 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.

> Again, repeating an out of date description does you no good.

The description cannot be out of date for something available for
download that same day, Mike.

>>> Note that they do not refer to them as "the Java 2 versions of
>>> RMIM-IIOP and the Java COMM API".

>> They refer to them as:
>>
>> ] functions from Sun's Java 2 technology

> No, they don't.

Liar.

> That's your incorrect interpretation.

Incorrect, Mike; that's a verbatim excerpt.

>>> They are not.

>> Prove it, Mike.

> I already have, Dave.

> Since Java 2 was released in 1998, RMI-IIOP was obviously not in it.

It is now, Mike, and IBM implemented that functionality in 1.1.8.

> Gee, since Sun explicitly states that it will not be part of the core
> JDK, it obviously isn't in Java 2, either.

Are you trying to say that nothing outside of the core can be considered
part of Java 2, Mike?  Back to your old semantic arguments, I see.

>>>>> All of your claims are wrong.

>>>> Message-ID: <7k3u1v$aec$[e-mail]> states otherwise,
Mike.

>>> The article you refer to is incorrect and out of date,

>> Prove it, Mike.

> It was posted on June 12, 1999.

I told you that already, Mike.

> JDK 1.1.8 was made available in August of 1999.

The preview was available for download on June 12, Mike.

> Your reference is superceded by the actual release.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         23-Oct-99 09:36:13
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 10:32:22
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

My reference is coincident with the preview release.

>>> and also does not state what you think it does.

>> It states what I've quoted, Mike.  I happen to think it states what I've
>> quoted.  Thus it does state what I think it does, so you are therefore
>> wrong once again.

> On the contrary, you think it states that "the Java 2 versions" of
> several features are included, when it states no such thing.

Where did I say that I think that, Mike?  Another one of your inferences
that you'll blame on an alleged implication of mine?

>>> I've presented the more accurate, up to date description, which you've
>>> ignored.

>> I've ignored your unsubstantiated pontification, Mike.

> My claims are based on the desription from IBM.

What alleged description, Mike?

> It's more recent than your outdated newsgroup article.

It's entirely possible for newer documents to replace older documents
without contradicting them, Mike.

>>> What's laughable is that IBM has corrected and updated their information,
>>> yet you continue to cling to and defend the earlier,

>> Which is referenceable document, as opposed to your pontification.

> My "pontification", as you call it, is IBM's own description of JDK 1.1.8 --
> The shipping version, not the Preview version.

Where is this alleged description, Mike?

>>> incorrect information.  That's pretty pathetic.

>> Your pontification is pretty pathetic, Mike.  So is your reasoning.

> Yet you cannot counter it,

See facts #1 through #12, Mike.

> except to call it "pontification".

Where's the references, Mike?

>>>> But even if true, does that someone make Joseph's statement wrong?

>>> I believe it does, and I've explained why.  You didn't address my
>>> explanation at all.  You (and Joseph) believe his statement is
>>> completely correct, since you feel that "implements JDK 1.2
>>> functionality" implies "some".

>> I've demonstrated that it is logical to rule out "all".

> No, you have not.

See facts #4 and #5, Mike.

> Your argument relies on the version number, when
> the point of the post was not to use the version number.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Mike?  I wasn't talking about
the point of your post.  I was talking about your claim that Joseph is
wrong.  He is not; 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.

>>> Fortunately, IBM's JDK 1.2 is scheduled to be available for OS/2 in
>>> "Early 2000", and it *will* implement JDK 1.2 functionality.  Of course,
>>> IBM's JDK 1.2 for Windows is scheduled to be released "Late 4Q 1999".

>> Irrelevant, Mike, given that we're not discussing that.

> We're discussing JDK 1.2 functionality.

We're discussing your claim that Joseph is wrong.  You're trying to
divert attention away from an argument that you clearly lost, Mike.

> I'm letting you know when it will be available from IBM.

Yet more diversion from the original issue.

> I'm sure they'll do a good job.

Yet more diversion from the original issue.

>>> "Premiere platform" indeed.

>> The fastest around.

> I see you are demonstrating your ignorance once again.

I see you are pontification once again.

> In most areas, IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for Windows is faster than their JDK 1.1.8
> for OS/2, as shown by IBM's own tests.

How many is "most", Mike?  "A good deal", perhaps?

>>>>>>> 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, Dave, I am absolutely certain that you don't know what you're
>>>>> talking about.  And you are proving my point with every post you make.

>>>> In reality, you're proving your illogic with every post you make.

>>> Interestingly, you base your "reality" on an incorrect and outdated
>>> press release, while refusing to address the current, updated description.

>> You haven't pointed to any document, Mike.

> I've quoted a document.

You haven't pointed to any document, Mike.

> It's on IBM's web site.

You said you didn't need to run the JDK to look at the contents, thereby
"implying" (to use your definition) that the document is a part of the
JDK, Mike.

> What's the matter, you couldn't find it?

What makes you ask that, Mike?

>>> Clinging to the past will get you nowhere.

>> Pontificating will get you nowhere.

> Quoting IBM is not "pontificating".

Alleged quotes.  I provided a reference to my quotations of IBM.  You have
not.  Note the difference.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             23-Oct-99 12:04:07
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 10:32:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7urgrc$ivu$[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.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word
> >> DT] analogous 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
> >> DT] the time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
> >> DT] playing a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> > Irrelevant, given that the alleged game has not been proven to
exist.
>
> Incorrect; see above for the evidence.

No, correct. The above is merely a repetition of your illogical
responses.

> > The logic has run out,
>
> You haven't used any yet.

Irrelevant, given that only your illogic is at issue.

> > so David repeats his mistaken assertion over and over.
>
> What allegedly mistaken assertion, Lucien?

See above.

> > Typical.
>
> Typical that you would play a game,

On the contrary, I'm merely countering your illogical reasoning.

> in which you claim evidence
> for the present situation is in a thread from years ago.

Nevertheless, it is present in the "costly mistakes" thread, in full.

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]                             23-Oct-99 12:10:28
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 14:34:06
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7urh0i$ivu$[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.
>
> >> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word
> >> DT] analogous 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
> >> DT] the time of that thread.
> >> DT]
> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
> >> DT] playing a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> > Again, the alleged game,
>
> Again, the proven game.

Wrong. I'm merely countering your illogical statements.

> > when only my countering of your illogic is involved.
>
> Where did you allegedly counter my alleged illogic, Lucien?  You're

See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for specific instances.

> the one who think the word analogous to "prevent" in the present

Illogical, given that the concern is not a single word, but an entire
sentence structure.

> situation is in a thread from years ago.

Nevertheless, the proof is there, in full.

>  Too bad you've got your
> chronology backwards.

Too bad you're still lost.

> > A mistaken assertion repeated over and over again,
>
> What allegedly mistaken assertion, Lucien?

See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for examples.

> > a typical last resort of the ineffective advocate
>
> Yeah, that's exactly what you're doing.

Irrelevant, given that you're the one repeating mistakes, 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: [e-mail]                             23-Oct-99 12:18:09
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 14:34:06
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7urhaq$ivu$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >> 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.
>
> >>> He's on the road to recovery.
>
> >> Typical invective.  Meanwhile, you're continuing your "infantile
> >> game", following me around into different threads like a puppy, and
> >> Lucien is also obviously playing a game, as the evidence below
clearly
> >> demonstrates.
>
> > On the contrary, I am merely countering your illogic and irrelevant
> > arguments.
>
> What alleged illogic and irrelevant arguments of mine, Lucien?

See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for proofs.

> > The exchange below is only more repeated irrelevancies and illogic
> > (from you).
>
> Incorrect, Lucien.

No, it is correct.

> The exchange below demonstrates your illogic,

No, the exchange below merely repeats my countering of your illogical
statements.

> given that you tried to use something that occurred before the
> present situation as evidence for a word that allegedly appears
> in the present situation.

An uninformed response, given that the analysis and proof of the data
in both cases is independent of any chronology.

> > You lose. Again.
>
> Pontification doesn't work on me, Lucien.

Again the alleged pontification. I've presented only mere countering of
your irrelevancies and illogic.

> Neither do time warps.

Illogical.

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                          23-Oct-99 08:41:22
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 14:34:06
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Brent Davies posted :

>
> Stephen S. Edwards II <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:7uqths$dsh$[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!
>
> Here, here!  I never thought I'd dislike arguing with anyone more than I
> dislike arguing with Matt.  I was wrong.  =(

Hrmph! Actually, I did think you like making him a punching bag since
you could both create some long entertaining threads.

> Who brought the OS/2 advocacy here anyway?

<shrug>

The main problem with a large segment of OS/2 advocates is
backwardness and an extreme case of closed minded bias. They try to
justify this in ridiculous ways or even worse, they don't even realise
the backwardness of their statements. <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]                             23-Oct-99 13:51:15
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 14:34:06
Subj: Re: ...when they killed the Warp 5 client. NOT

From: [e-mail]

Legacy notions of client and server do not apply well to the 1999 OS/2 Warp.
Hence the terms network computing and network station. I think most
developers realize that coding to a network is different than coding to
a client. At the 3rd annual WarpStock, one IBM technologist was
calling the code that is cloned to a network station as Warp 5 client. But
the concepts are just different. I see the stock drop as taking a bath on
investments in Microsoft technology and betting the farm on network
computing/ OS/2. You know like Bill Gates was going to do on NT. What
a bath that would have been if he had actually done that! The IBM
copper technology has extented perhaps indefinitely the life of 32 bit
intel technology. Large OS/2 customers know that and IMO forced
IBM to cannibalize other operating system products for features
IBM marketing personal had likely reserved for 64 bit and non Intel
based processors. Those features are now in the 1999 edition of OS/2
making it the most supercharged vehicle for the information super
highway. There is a lesson here. Posibly because of Y2K, business
men know that they control the introduction of technology rather
than the technology firms. This means there is customer power that
IBM must respond to. OS/2 has beenefited from that change in power.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm
last update 23 October 1999


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jerry McBride) writes:
>I just read this post on an OS/2 mailing list and it deserves the light of
day
>in a public forum...
>
>I'll stand by my OS/2 commitment, but not to the those that "run the show" at
>IBM. The gentleman that posted this message, could probably lead a sucessful
>attack on both MicroSloth and IBM main HQ... :') and be back in time for
tea...
>
>---- quote starts here ----
>
>Well, IBM closed today at 91.
>
>That's down $44 since Sept 16, when they killed the Warp 5 client.
>
>Any stockholder or employee who believes that Gerstner's strategy of
>"big guys only" makes any sense at all is being proven wrong.
>
>Any stockholder or employee who believes that his strategy of
>surrendering the desktop to Microsoft was good for the stockholders is
>being proven wrong.
>
>Any stockholder or employee who believes that his strategy of kissing up
>to Gates was good business is being proven wrong.
>
>Any stockholder or employee who believes that his strategy of abandoning
>technological leadership and relying on support and service only made
>sense is being proven wrong.
>
>IBM, who gave us the best desktop Operating System in existence but
>couldn't sell it ...
>
>IBM, who gave us SOM and OpenDoc but couldn't develop it ...
>
>IBM, who gave us the ThinkPad but lost a billion dollars in one year
>with it's Windows-preloads-only-marketing ...
>
>IBM, who gave us Deep Blue and so much other great technology ...
>
> ... doesn't deserve to be led by this coward and his clutch of
>spineless sub slime-molds (Papows, Casey, Smith, Osborne, Thomas ...).
>
>---- quote end here ----
>
>It's a refreshing perspective. Cheers,
>
>--
>
>******************************************************************************
*
>*            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]             |
>\----------------------------------------/
>
>--
>
>
>--
>
>******************************************************************************
*
>*            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]             |
>\----------------------------------------/
>
>--
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>******************************************************************************
*
>*            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: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

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

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          23-Oct-99 09:02:15
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 14:34:06
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Brent Davies posted :


==8<===
> This is total BS.  Windows finds a new device, Windows learns the device's
> name from the device, then Windows asks for the manufacturer provided driver
> disk.  I must have done this 100 times.
>
> The only departure from this process that I have ever witnessed is when the
> manufacturer puts the Windows drivers in a subdirectory on the mfg'r
> provided media, then asks if you want to use another driver (normally a
> generic Windows driver).  You simply say no, go back one step and browse the
> mfg'r provided media for the Win9(x) or WinNT subdirectory.
>
> If you are using the Windows generic driver instead of the mfg'r provided
> driver, that would be your problem.
>
> However, you don't care to hear how you might actually make the system work.
> You only want to blame your problems on MS.  Therefore, I present this
> posting to Hobbyist and anyone else who might possibly be mislead by your
> mindless dribble.

Don't you for one minute think that I'm misled by his dribble. I see
right through his unbelievably biased and closed-minded attitude. I
used to be an OS/2'ite remember? I used to be on discussion groups
that blamed their harddrive malfunction, necessitating replacement, on
windows. When their OS/2 system installed on HPFS formatted partitions
malfunctioned, they blamed it on windows installed in separate
partitions in a multiboot environment, instead of OS/2 or their own
incompetence. They unfairly blamed a lot of other things on windows
when it was really their own incompetence and crazed willingness to
blame windows.

Now don't get me wrong, the OS/2 community is full of very clue-full
and fair users who aren't like this in the least and this is why I
loved the OS/2 community so much. But the Gerner types are so common
in COOA. It would appear that they have to convince themselves that
OS/2 Warp is such a fantastic product compared to it's contenders that
it's still the best thing to use despite the fact that it's been
abandoned by IBM for years and only in obligatory maintenance mode in
deference to large customers who still find it useful.

--
-=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]                             23-Oct-99 14:08:22
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 14:34:06
Subj: Re: A reminder, please listen for all our sakes

From: [e-mail]

In <7uj309$[e-mail]>, "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>
writes:

Nice vent. But you conveniently forget the story presented under oath by
IBM during the Microsoft - DoJ trial, and the damning testimony by Bill
Gates in his deposition. IBM has and continues to pay for its transgressions.
Microsoft refuses to admit they were caught and continues to live in
a fantesy where the company still can be viewed as a start up. The
Microsoft era is over. It is time to forgive and forget them. They will
not be a strong force for another decaide at least. Now it is
time to look at network computing and OS/2 -- seriously.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm
last update 23 October 1999

>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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                   23-Oct-99 10:20:03
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 14:34:07
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: [e-mail] (Eric Bennett)

In article <mFZP3.3883$[e-mail]>, "Chad Myers"
<[e-mail]> wrote:


> 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??)"

Any number of reasons... only one of them being the possibility that they
thought there was no case.

> There you go.  The Justice decided to remain on the case despite
> the FTC abandonning it's investigation.

And yet the DOJ seems quite like to win its case.  Hmmm.  Perhaps the FTC
is not doing its job.

> 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).

Poor Gates.  I'm just crying out with sympathy for him.

--
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]                             23-Oct-99 14:23:26
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 14:34:07
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]>, "Kim
Cheung" <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>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.    :=)

The video of the installation is on Compuserve in the OS/2 forum. I wondered
why Compuserve 2000 was distributed at WarpStock. If there were questions
about OS/2's viability before WarpStock they were answered loudly by IBM's
management who sponsored the event. IBM was one of the exhibitors.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm
last update 23 October 1999


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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            23-Oct-99 14:54:03
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 14:34:07
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:50:24, [e-mail] (Tim Smith) wrote:

> 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?
>
Add another nought.


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                            23-Oct-99 14:54:03
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 14:34:07
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:00:11, "Kim Cheung"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>
Oh, I agree. It looks like a very interesting offer. If I were Black
and had a shimmer of knowledge of Windows innards, I'd take you up on
it. After all, he *does* believe Windows is superior to OS/2...

> 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.
>
LOL

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]                        23-Oct-99 16:36:07
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
[snip]
|
| Hrmph! Actually, I did think you like making him a punching bag since
| you could both create some long entertaining threads.

That's why I don't mind posting to Matt.  It's semi-entertaining and it
serves to show that there are many sources in the world whose bias taints
their opinions.  Hopefully, Matt will some day learn how to find such bias
in what he reads.

-B


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

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

From: [e-mail]                        23-Oct-99 16:38:28
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <[e-mail]>

Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
| On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Brent Davies posted :
|
|
| ==8<===
[snip]
|
| Don't you for one minute think that I'm misled by his dribble. I see
| right through his unbelievably biased and closed-minded attitude.

I didn't mean otherwise.  There are two sets in my comment.  "Hobbyist" and
"people who might believe his dribble".  I can tell from your previous
postings to Germer that you don't buy his crap for a second.

-B


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  23-Oct-99 13:05:07
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

<[e-mail]> tholened:

> Timbologic, as opposed to real logic.

And as opposed to Tholenlogik(tm).


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     23-Oct-99 10:12:04
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


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

On 10-23-99, 8:46:32 AM, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen) wrote
regarding Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!:


> Mike Timbol writes:

> > I'll just reply to both articles here, to avoid too much repetition...

> You can do better than that, Mike.  Why not simply invoke your usual
> deletion tactic and get rid of *all* the repetition?  In fact, why
> not simply address the original issue?

> Fact # 1:  Joseph said that 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.
> Fact # 2:  That could be interpreted to mean either "some" or "all"
>            of the functionality.
> Fact # 3:  You claimed that Joseph is wrong.
> Fact # 4:  IBM explicitly used 1.1.8 as the version number, not 1.2.
> Fact # 5:  It is illogical to use the older version number if your
>            product supports all of the functionality of the newer
>            version number.
> Fact # 6:  Fact #5 allows you to eliminate "all" from the list of
>            possible interpretations of Joseph's statement.
> Fact # 7:  That leaves "some" as the only logical interpretation
>            of Joseph's statement.
> Fact # 8:  You admitted that 1.1.8 implements some of the Java 1.2
>            functionality.
> Fact # 9:  You are therefore in agreement with the only logical
>            interpretation of Joseph's statement.
> Fact #10:  Facts #3 and #9 contradict one another.  Both cannot
>            be right.
> Fact #11:  I claimed that you are wrong.
> Fact #12:  Fact #10 proves my claim.


Possibility #1: Quote a post following usenet guidelines.  Keep the
post in
                its context.  Do not quote one short sentence.

Possibility #2: When characterizing a post and its meaning, quote the
text
                if you are interpreting what the author indented and
                paraphrasing the post.





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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  23-Oct-99 13:13:29
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something or other claiming to be a <[e-mail]> tholened:

> >> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
> >> DT] playing a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> > Again, the alleged game,
>
> Again, the proven game.

Only because Tholen makes it so.  Same old Tholen.



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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  23-Oct-99 13:28:20
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something whacked calling itself a <[e-mail]> tholened:

> > So then dismiss me Dave.
>
> I did that long ago, Marty.

And yet here you are, still duking it out over some misperception of yours.
Very telling.  And do make up your mind, Tholen.



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

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

From: [e-mail]                      23-Oct-99 17:31:28
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

think there is enough room in a trailer, even a double-wide for that many
'puters?

Chad Mulligan <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:7uqlej$411$[e-mail]...
>
> Drestin Black <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > Hey Chad - let's fly down and visit Jerry's "WHOLE room" - whatcha say?
> >
>
> Do you think his parents would let us in?
>
> > Chad Mulligan <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:7uoild$p5q$[e-mail]...
> > >
> > > Jerry McBride wrote in message <[e-mail]>...
> > > >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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>


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

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

From: [e-mail]                      23-Oct-99 17:37:05
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

<jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-dterEXMck3ks@localhost...
> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
>
> |---------------------------------------------------|
> |            <undefined O/S> boot options           |
> |                                                   |
> |               Please choose from list             |
> |                                                   |
> |       <crash>         <OS/2>        <linux>       |
> |---------------------------------------------------|
>
wow, if that is your list then I guess you originally were running OS/2 or
linux and one of them crashed so badly that upon rebooting it couldn't even
identify itself. And now you have your original choice of boot options.
Option #1 is a little nutty though eh? Maybe try replacing that with NT so
you'll have a reliable default boot choice instead of two unreliable ones


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     23-Oct-99 10:41:08
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


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

On 10-23-99, 2:20:06 PM, [e-mail] (Eric Bennett) wrote
regarding Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget:

> > There you go.  The Justice decided to remain on the case despite
> > the FTC abandonning it's investigation.

> And yet the DOJ seems quite like to win its case.  Hmmm.  Perhaps the
FTC
> is not doing its job.

"The Microsoft Files" (see amazon.com for a description of the book)
details the FTC's and DOJ's early efforts to document and investigate
MS.  IMHO the FTC investigation paved the way for the DOJ case.

What MS was doing with PCs and Os in the 80's and early 90's would not
be called illegal unless MS has monopoly power and taking on IBM was
seen as courageous. (Monopoly power can exist if a company has a
simple majority of market share but it must be proven).  IMHO that is
why MS had such good press for so long - IBM was larger and MS was
beating the old bully.

According to "The Microsoft Files", the FTC was investigating MS when
they were considered a pawn/cooperator with IBM.  The FTC began it
investigation with IBM/MS scheming to divide the OS market into
Windows and OS/2.  IMHO the IBM / MS split and head-to-head
competition made any complaint against MS less credible.  Any argument
for MS having monopolistic power would be less likely to stick since
MS was taking on the former "Evil Empire" called IBM.

As the FTC investigation went and then closed, MS remained aggressive
and grew larger.  Most of the DOJ's case is based on contemporary
evidence - things that occurred long after the FTC ended their
investigation.  They knew the tactics and were able to collect a case.
 Most companies would have learned from the FTC investigation and
changed tactics, become less bold and trained execs in anti-trust law
to mitigate damaging e-mails.  Intel does this training.  MS did not.

As we know the DOJ case is strategic and quite clever.  They are
attacking MS on one point, the browser market.  They are seeking broad
injunctive relief if they win.  That means they argue one aspect of
the computer market, the browser, but show a pattern of abuse on MS's
part to control that market.  That means they can and will seek broad,
not limited relief, such as restructure or break up the company.

Very clever and not surprise that the DOJ lawyer who defended IBM from
a broad attack in the 70s-80s is the one who is leading this case
against MS.





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

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

From: [e-mail]                             23-Oct-99 20:08:16
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 19:54:20
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

>>>> 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.

>>>>> He's on the road to recovery.

>>>> Typical invective.  Meanwhile, you're continuing your "infantile
>>>> game", following me around into different threads like a puppy, and
>>>> Lucien is also obviously playing a game, as the evidence below
>>>> clearly demonstrates.

>>> On the contrary, I am merely countering your illogic and irrelevant
>>> arguments.

>> What alleged illogic and irrelevant arguments of mine, Lucien?

> See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for proofs.

Neither contains any proofs for the alleged illogic and irrelevant
arguments of mine, Lucien.

>>> The exchange below is only more repeated irrelevancies and illogic
>>> (from you).

>> Incorrect, Lucien.

> No, it is correct.

Balderdash.

>> The exchange below demonstrates your illogic,

> No, the exchange below merely repeats my countering of your illogical
> statements.

Impossible, given that I did not make any illogical statements for you
to counter.

>> given that you tried to use something that occurred before the
>> present situation as evidence for a word that allegedly appears
>> in the present situation.

> An uninformed response,

Incorrect, given that my response is based on information, namely your
claim.

> given that the analysis and proof of the data in both cases is
> independent of any chronology.

Illogical, given that I asked you to point out the allegedly analogous
word, not some "analysis and proof of the data".

>>> You lose. Again.

>> Pontification doesn't work on me, Lucien.

> Again the alleged pontification.

Nothing alleged about it, Lucien.  Note the absence of any supporting
explanation from you.

> I've presented only mere countering of your irrelevancies and illogic.

"Mere countering" without supporting explanations is indeed
pontification.

>> Neither do time warps.

> Illogical.

Then why does your evidence rely on one, Lucien?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             23-Oct-99 20:15:04
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 19:54:20
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Joseph Coughlan writes:

>> Mike Timbol writes:

>>> I'll just reply to both articles here, to avoid too much repetition.

>> You can do better than that, Mike.  Why not simply invoke your usual
>> deletion tactic and get rid of *all* the repetition?  In fact, why
>> not simply address the original issue?
>>
>> Fact # 1:  Joseph said that 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.
>> Fact # 2:  That could be interpreted to mean either "some" or "all"
>>            of the functionality.
>> Fact # 3:  You claimed that Joseph is wrong.
>> Fact # 4:  IBM explicitly used 1.1.8 as the version number, not 1.2.
>> Fact # 5:  It is illogical to use the older version number if your
>>            product supports all of the functionality of the newer
>>            version number.
>> Fact # 6:  Fact #5 allows you to eliminate "all" from the list of
>>            possible interpretations of Joseph's statement.
>> Fact # 7:  That leaves "some" as the only logical interpretation
>>            of Joseph's statement.
>> Fact # 8:  You admitted that 1.1.8 implements some of the Java 1.2
>>            functionality.
>> Fact # 9:  You are therefore in agreement with the only logical
>>            interpretation of Joseph's statement.
>> Fact #10:  Facts #3 and #9 contradict one another.  Both cannot
>>            be right.
>> Fact #11:  I claimed that you are wrong.
>> Fact #12:  Fact #10 proves my claim.

> Possibility #1: Quote a post following usenet guidelines.  Keep the
>                 post in its context.  Do not quote one short sentence.
>
> Possibility #2: When characterizing a post and its meaning, quote the
>                 text if you are interpreting what the author indented
>                 and paraphrasing the post.

You're responding to me, but I presume your comments are directed
toward Mike Timbol.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                           23-Oct-99 20:41:29
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 19:54:20
Subj: Re: A reminder, please listen for all our sakes

From: [e-mail] (John Varela)

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:40:01, "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I am getting so fed up with you people.

Then why don't you just go away?

Plonk.

--
John Varela
to e-mail, remove - between mind and spring

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

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

From: [e-mail]                23-Oct-99 16:52:19
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 19:54:20
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (tholenbot)

In article <7uj7m8$7sm$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] 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.
>
> I see you failed to comprehend my evidence.

Seeing things that aren't there again, David?  Your evidence did not
support your claim.

> Still having reading
> comprehension problems, Eric?

Illogical.

> >> Gerben Bergman did a little investigating
> >> and confirmed that Wayne Strang won.  See
> >> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>
> > Reading comprehension problems again, Dave?
>
> Obviously not.

See what I mean?

> > Gerben's post shows that you were the winner:
>
> Gerben's post shows that Wayne Strang is the winner.

Incorrect.

> See the message
> referenced above.

Typical circular reasoning.  Ineffective.

> >>>>>> 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,

Incorrect.

> given that I explained why there is nothing illogical about
> it,

Your explanation was illogical.

> while you only make the claim with offering any explanation.

I have already explained it.  Your failure to comprehend the explanation
is predictable, David.

> >>> given that the burden of proof is yours.
>
> >> It's already been proven.
>
> > Evidence, please.
>
> See the referenced message above.

Typical circular reasoning.  Ineffective.

> >> The burden to read the proof is yours, Eric.
>
> > Argument by assertion again, Dave?
>
> Where is the alleged assertion, Eric?

How ironic.

> > How predictable.
>
> How illogical to refer to a nonexistent assertion.

You erroneously presuppose a that I made a reference to a nonexisting
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.

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 see you didn't answer my question.

Irrelevant.

> >>> I do not "approve" phrases.
> >>> -Dave Tholen
>
> >> I'm puzzled by your fascination with that statement, Eric.
>
> > What puzzles you is irrelevant.
>
> Incorrect.

Evidence, please.

> > What you can prove is relevant.
>
> Non sequitur.

Evidence, please.

> >> 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?

[Ed: Seems reasonable enough.]

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                23-Oct-99 20:56:14
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 19:54:20
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: [e-mail] (Jack Troughton)

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 05:41:20, "Brent Davies"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

█
ΩStephen S. Edwards II <[e-mail]> wrote in message
Ωnews:7uqths$dsh$[e-mail]...
Ω| Bob Germer <[e-mail]> writes:
Ω|
Ω| : Now, go get Mommy to explain it to you.
Ω|
Ω| Ugh!  It's simply useless arguing with the likes of you.
Ω|
Ω| FOAD, ESAD, etc.
Ω|
Ω| *PLOINK!*
Ω|
Ω| I'll take Matt Tempelton over this buck-toothed twerp any day.  Furrfu!
█
ΩHere, here!  I never thought I'd dislike arguing with anyone more than I
Ωdislike arguing with Matt.  I was wrong.  =(
█
ΩWho brought the OS/2 advocacy here anyway?

Kelly Robinson ([e-mail]) started this thread and
crossposted it to the os2 and nt advocacy groups.  He's been hanging
around in os2.advocacy for a while; he used to use warp, and now runs
be and nt, and likes to come in and spread shit in the warp group.
Unfortunately, it seems he managed to get under the skin of some of
the older lurkers in the group, and you've been nailed in the
crossfire.

Robinson is a known accelarant to flame wars.

NT's not bad. I admin my own 95 box at work, and it's stable.  I do
prefer warp overall though, not least because when I get home from
work it's nice to be able to use a different system than the one at
work.

Warp is a paradise for the gentle hacker as well, with the inclusion
of REXX as its scripting language.  REXX is quite powerful.

I like to lurk the advocacy groups, sometimes they are entertaining.
Sometimes they step past the bounds of good taste.  It's a reality of
usenet.

As far as the person who started this, you can look to Robinson.  He
started the thread in both groups, and I think that if you review his
posting style that he is a troller extraordinaire.

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montr┌al PQ Canada

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             23-Oct-99 21:22:29
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 19:54:20
Subj: Re: ...when they killed the Warp 5 client.

From: [e-mail] (Bernard B. Yoo)

As an avid OS/2 user, I regret IBM's lack of OS/2 support.  As an IBM
stockholder, I think IBM's lack of OS/2 support is the equivalent of
"giving up one battle to win the war".  Because of IBM's history, the
market will not allow any IBM technology to dominate the industry.  If
IBM were to push OS/2, IBM would become another Apple Computer,
providing excellent products on one platform, but detached from the
rest of the software industry.  Instead, IBM is services-centered and
thus makes money by providing top-notch services for the most
profitable platforms, home-grown or not.  IBM provides the best NT
server (NT on AS/400) and probably makes more profit on NT than any
other company.  Before long, IBM will be providing the best enterprise
Linux server and make more money on Linux than any other company.

In any case, IBM is treating its OS/2 users much better than Microsoft
is treating its Windows 3.x/95 users.  I recently installed APL2 on
Solaris.  This product has essentially been frozen since 1994, but IBM
has continued to provide the updates required to make it run on the
current version of Solaris.  One of the advantages of APL2 being
frozen is that it is a feature-stable platform.  I can expect the
programs I write for it today to run ten years from now.  While APL2
itself is frozen, IBM hasn't left it behind.  IBM has made it possible
to interface APL2 to the Web and Java, preserving and extending the
value of the APL2 user's investment in APL2.  I expect IBM to do the
same for OS/2.

In any case, I don't think the recent drop in IBM's stock price is an
indication of a failure in IBM's business strategy.  In fact, I think
IBM's business strategy is stronger than ever before.  IBM is
positioned to make gains regardless of which technologies win in the
near future.  For that matter, I believe Apple is also in a strong
position and I expect Apple to continue be a successful company for a
long time to come, even though it may never capture more than 25% of
the personal computer market.  IBM and Apple have different, but
successful strategies.  The big loser here is Microsoft, whose current
dominance is based on a very fragile mutual dependence between
Windows, Office, and preloads.  When any one of these three fail, the
others will follow.  MS's only hope is to establish Office's dominance
on Linux, but they will have to learn to compete on a level playing
field.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                   23-Oct-99 16:21:27
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 21:23:15
Subj: Re: ...when they killed the Warp 5 client.

From: [e-mail] (Tim Smith)

Jerry McBride <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I just read this post on an OS/2 mailing list and it deserves the light of
day
>in a public forum...
...
>---- quote starts here ----
>That's down $44 since Sept 16, when they killed the Warp 5 client.
>
>Any stockholder or employee who believes that Gerstner's strategy of
>"big guys only" makes any sense at all is being proven wrong.
>
>Any stockholder or employee who believes that his strategy of
>surrendering the desktop to Microsoft was good for the stockholders is
>being proven wrong.
>
>Any stockholder or employee who believes that his strategy of kissing up
>to Gates was good business is being proven wrong.
>
>Any stockholder or employee who believes that his strategy of abandoning
>technological leadership and relying on support and service only made
>sense is being proven wrong.

And any stockholder or employee who makes such generalizations from two
samples a month apart, ignoring things like that fact that the stock is
still higher than it has been for most of the past couple of years, has
demonstrated that he or she is an idiot.

--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]                               23-Oct-99 23:49:02
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 21:23:15
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>

In article <7uqbg6$lsr$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina writes:
>
> > Marty wrote:
>
> >> I wrote:
>
> >>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
> >>>    --Roberto Alsina
>
> >> Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
> >> would do?
>
> > Well, everyone (except Dave) knows the answer to that question,
right?
>
> How would you know what everyone thinks, Roberto?

I am not sure. That's why there is a question mark in that sentence.

> > It took some years, but Dave finally lost his few remaining marbles.
>
> Typical invective, and rather ironic, coming from someone who didn't
> have enough marbles to compute an average posting rate properly.

Hey, you are back to "normal", liar Dave. Seems the medication kicked
in.

--
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]                      24-Oct-99 00:06:02
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 21:23:15
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

<jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-> > >
|---------------------------------------------------|
> > > |            <undefined O/S> boot options           |
> > > |                                                   |
> > > |               Please choose from list             |
> > > |                                                   |
> > > |       <crash>         <OS/2>        <linux>       |
> > > |---------------------------------------------------|
> > >
> > wow, if that is your list then I guess you originally were running OS/2
or
> > linux and one of them crashed so badly that upon rebooting it couldn't
even
> > identify itself. And now you have your original choice of boot options.
> > Option #1 is a little nutty though eh? Maybe try replacing that with NT
so
> > you'll have a reliable default boot choice instead of two unreliable
ones
> >
> >
> You really *are* clueless, aren't you?

No. Follow along and I'll use small words so you'll understand. I made a
joke to your own joke. Admittedly both are stupid.

>
> But to play along: if the alleged crashed O/S were OS/2 or linux, why
> would they still be in the boot manager's list?

Are you stupid or is this still a joke? If an OS crashed, do you expect it
to remove itself from the list of options at boot time? If your OS crashed
and you rebooted, do you expect to see an option "crash" for that OS?


>Besides. O/S's don't
> have to identify themselves to a boot manager; in fact, they should
> stay away from it as far as possible, to insure continued enjoyment of
> said boot manager and the rest of the computer.

Well, doh!

>
> Actually, AFAIK, there's only one O/S (sort of) that will futz with
> boot manager partitions. And guess what, its name doesn't start with
> an "O" or an "l".
Not in my experience, but I know denial is a common state for anti-MS
advocates so I'm sure you'll do just that.

>
> Oh, and calling OS/2 and linux "unreliable" as opposed to Windows NT
> should make you eligible for some serious smiting from above. But hey!
> if you want to run around with copper rods during thunderstorms,
> that's enirely your business.

I'm sure you are wrong.
>
> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
>
> (this really is the last time I'll crosspost this to COMNA. I'm
> getting tired of people replying to siglines instead of the post. Have
> fun with your MVP grants while they still last.)

Never needed/wanted/heard of one.

You really should get a sense of humor...


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

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

From: [e-mail]                      24-Oct-99 00:09:18
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 21:23:15
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

he's just jealous, it's painfully obvious. Why do all his type always lack a
sense of humor?

Maybe it's cause they are so constipated from having to defend their OS's
lackings.

I've noticed NT users are a happier/fun loving bunch. Maybe because we spend
FAR less time setting up and administering our networks and enjoying life
(also cause we actually made some money working on computers). I've noticed
NT admins are a far less frustrated bunch (on average) and usually have
friends of the opposite sex (who don't hang out with them only to get their
geometry homework done free) and jobs where the server count is usually in 2
or 3 digits.

Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> wrote in message
news:2RASOGlVHeKa1Yp=[e-mail]...
> On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net posted :
>
> > (this really is the last time I'll crosspost this to COMNA.
>
> Yeah, you do that. :) We'll miss you dearly ...Boohoo ... sob.
>
> > I'm getting tired of people replying to siglines instead of the post.
>
> Yiieeaaah, whatever. But you see, we're not used to that level of
> stupidity in these parts, so when we see it, it's unnerving and we
> just gotta comment on it.
>
> So the COOA subscribers are used to you huh? Well, go back to them.
>
> > Have fun with your MVP grants while they still last.)
>
> LOL. What a winner guys. :))))
>
> --
> -=Ali M.=-
>
> Mail to: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
>          <remove _nospam_>


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               23-Oct-99 23:59:20
  To: All                                               23-Oct-99 21:23:15
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>

In article <7uq8mu$jib$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina writes:
>
> > Since all the latest quoted material below is either Eliza responses
> > pasted by Dave Tholen, or Dave Tholen doing his best to sound like
> > Eliza (he did once try to do that and failed miserably,
>
> Incorrect, Roberto; I never tried to sound like Eliza.

Nonsense. You are denying the obvious. Of course you are a liar kook,
so that is to be expected.

> > so I suppose he used the real thing this time),
>
> I extracted responses from a posting that you claimed contained
> Eliza responses both times, Roberto.  You fell for it the first
> time, hook, line, and sinker.

Prove it if you think you can. Your post contained a specific sentence
that Eliza could have never formed, and I specified what your mistake
was.

> > I will not reply to it.
>
> What do you consider the posting of yours to which I'm responding,
> Roberto?

"it" being the ersatz Eliza, that post was not a response to it.

> > That would be the act of a kook.
> > However, I will use this post for a more useful purpose.
> >
> > Anyone who argues with Tholen in the future can now use the
following
> > fact: Dave has been proven a liar.
>
> Where is this alleged proof, Roberto?

Your claim to having read the entire post you reply to (and
remembering it) , and your failure to notice the answer to a question
*after* it was posted, yet admitting it was the answer. Charge against
which you did not present any defense at the time, instead relying on
non sequitur quotations.

> > He has also said that what a liar says can be dismissed because
> > his credibility is diminished.
>
> Which means that you can be dismissed, given that you lied about the
> average number of postings I made each day.

Wrong != Lie

> > So, just call him a liar,
>
> But you're a liar, Roberto, which means that your claim can be
> dismissed.

Evidence is in this thread, recent and fresh for everyone to
notice your lie. No need to rely on my claim.

> > and whenever he tries to argue about it, dismiss him because of
> > his diminished credibility.
> > So, now, USENET should be a better place.
>
> Are you planning to leave, Roberto?

Not soon, Pinocchio.

By the way, do you authorize me to post your responses to machine
generated emails?

--
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: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            24-Oct-99 00:34:24
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 05:23:23
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 12:55:27, "Kim Cheung"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 23 Oct 1999 14:54:06 GMT, Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> >After all, he *does* believe Windows is superior to OS/2...
>
> Well, not only him: David McCoy, Hobbyist, John Todd....  they've been
> telling us for months how inferior OS/2 is when compared to Windows.   So,
> here's a chance for them to put their money where their mouth is.
>
Haven't you heard? Microsoft is closing down MVP. They probably don't
have the greens anymore. Windows advocacy suddenly becomes a lot less
fun when you don't get paid for it anymore <G>.

> Funny why everybody all of a sudden become silent.   Did any of you that
went
> to WarpStock 99 gave them a tip on what you saw in my presentation or what?

> Please don't ruin my chance of making a fortune on these guys.
>
Wasn't there (nobody would validate my air fare <G>), but you kinda
gave it away yourself, my good man.

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]                             24-Oct-99 00:27:07
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 05:23:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7ut3o3$mgo$[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.
>
> >>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word
> >>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>>>
> >>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
> >>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
at
> >>>> DT] the time of that thread.
> >>>> DT]
> >>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
> >>>> DT] playing a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>> Irrelevant, given that the alleged game has not been proven to
> >>> exist.
>
> >> Incorrect; see above for the evidence.
>
> > No, correct.
>
> Balderdash.

Nope, correct.

> > The above is merely a repetition of your illogical responses.
>
> Feel free to identify the alleged illogic, if you think you can.

See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for examples of your
illogical reasoning.

> Meanwhile, I certainly didn't have any trouble identifying the
> illogic of your response.

On the contrary, you've been completely unable to do this, as always.

> >>> The logic has run out,
>
> >> You haven't used any yet.
>
> > Irrelevant, given that only your illogic is at issue.
>
> What alleged illogic of mine, Lucien?

See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for examples.

>  Meanwhile, I certainly didn't
> have any trouble identifying the illogic of your response.

On the contrary, you've been completely unable to do this, as always.

> >>> so David repeats his mistaken assertion over and over.
>
> >> What allegedly mistaken assertion, Lucien?
>
> > See above.
>
> The above doesn't identify my allegedly mistaken assertion, Lucien.

It does.

> >>> Typical.
>
> >> Typical that you would play a game,
>
> > On the contrary, I'm merely countering your illogical reasoning.
>
> What allegedly illogical reasoning of mine, Lucien?

See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for examples.

> Meanwhile, I
> certainly didn't have any trouble identifying the illogic of your
> response.

On the contrary, you've been completely unable to do this, as always.

> >> in which you claim evidence for the present situation is in a
> >> thread from years ago.
>
> > Nevertheless, it is present in the "costly mistakes" thread, in
full.
>
> Illogical.

It is present and logical.

>  You can't have known about the present situation years ago,

Irrelevant, given that the analysis and proof of the data does not
depend on any chronology.

> therefore it's not possible that that thread identifies the allegedly
> analogous word in the present situation.

Irrelevant and illogical, given that the concern is the entire sentence
structure (not just one word) and there exists no dependence upon a
chronology in the analysis and proof of either set of data.

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]                             24-Oct-99 00:42:05
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 05:23:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7ut4k0$n9m$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>> Lucien is also obviously playing a game, as the evidence below
> >>>> clearly demonstrates.
>
> >>> On the contrary, I am merely countering your illogic and
irrelevant
> >>> arguments.
>
> >> What alleged illogic and irrelevant arguments of mine, Lucien?
>
> > See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for proofs.
>
> Neither contains any proofs for the alleged illogic and irrelevant
> arguments of mine, Lucien.

On the contrary, both are full of examples of your illogic and
irrelevancies. The "costly mistakes" thread contains detailed evidence
of your illogical arguments.

> >>> The exchange below is only more repeated irrelevancies and illogic
> >>> (from you).
>
> >> Incorrect, Lucien.
>
> > No, it is correct.
>
> Balderdash.

No, correct.

> >> The exchange below demonstrates your illogic,
>
> > No, the exchange below merely repeats my countering of your
illogical
> > statements.
>
> Impossible, given that I did not make any illogical statements for you
> to counter.

Quite possible, given that both this thread and the "costly mistakes"
thread are full of illogical statements from you.

> >> given that you tried to use something that occurred before the
> >> present situation as evidence for a word that allegedly appears
> >> in the present situation.
>
> > An uninformed response,
>
> Incorrect,

No, it is correct.

> given that my response is based on information, namely your
> claim.

Your response is wrong and therefore uninformed.

> > given that the analysis and proof of the data in both cases is
> > independent of any chronology.
>
> Illogical,

No, quite logical.

> given that I asked you to point out the allegedly analogous
> word, not some "analysis and proof of the data".

Irrelevant, given that the concern is not a singular word, but an
entire sentence structure.

> >>> You lose. Again.
>
> >> Pontification doesn't work on me, Lucien.
>
> > Again the alleged pontification.
>
> Nothing alleged about it, Lucien.

On the contrary, it is merely alleged.

>  Note the absence of any supporting
> explanation from you.

Note the mere allegation of pontification.

> > I've presented only mere countering of your irrelevancies and
illogic.
>
> "Mere countering" without supporting explanations is indeed
> pontification.

Complete analyses and proofs congruent with the data in question are in
the "costly mistakes" thread.

> >> Neither do time warps.
>
> > Illogical.
>
> Then why does your evidence rely on one, Lucien?

Illogical question, given that no time warp is involved.

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]                             24-Oct-99 00:55:03
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 05:23:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7ut45e$mu0$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word
> >>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
> >>>>
> >>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
> >>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
at
> >>>> DT] the time of that thread.
> >>>> DT]
> >>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
> >>>> DT] playing a game, there should be no doubt now.
>
> >>> Again, the alleged game,
>
> >> Again, the proven game.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Balderdash, Lucien.

No, wrong.

> > I'm merely countering your illogical statements.
>
> What allegedly illogical statements of mine, Lucien?

See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for examples.

> >>> when only my countering of your illogic is involved.
>
> >> Where did you allegedly counter my alleged illogic, Lucien?  You're

In this thread and in the "costly mistakes" thread.

> > See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for specific
> > instances.
>
> Neither contains any countering of my alleged illogic, Lucien.

On the contrary, both contain multiple instances of my countering your
illogic.

> >> the one who thinks the word analogous to "prevent" in the present
>
> > Illogical,
>
> Yes, your thought is illogical.

No, mine is logical.

> That's what I've been telling you all
> along.

And thus you've repeated your mistake again.

> > given that the concern is not a single word,
>
> Incorrect.

On the contrary, this is correct.

> I claimed that there is no word analogous to "prevent" in

Illogical, given that the concern is an entire sentence structure and
not a single word.

> the current situation.  You claimed otherwise, yet have failed to
> identify that allegedly analogous word.

Illogical, given that the concern is the entire sentence structure (and
not one word).

> > but an entire sentence structure.
>
> Changing your claim, Lucien?

No.

> >> situation is in a thread from years ago.
>
> > Nevertheless, the proof is there, in full.
>
> Illogical.

No, it is logical.

> You can't have known about the present situation years ago,

Illogical, given that the data in question and the proof exhibit no
dependence upon any chronology.

> therefore it's not possible that that thread identifies the allegedly
> analogous word in the present situation.

Illogical, see above.

> >>  Too bad you've got your chronology backwards.
>
> > Too bad you're still lost.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who is lost.

Illogical, given that the lost soul continues to be (only) you.

> >>> A mistaken assertion repeated over and over again,
>
> >> What allegedly mistaken assertion, Lucien?
>
> > See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for examples.
>
> Neither contains any examples of my allegedly mistaken assertion,
> Lucien.

Both are full of mistaken nonsense from you.

> >>> a typical last resort of the ineffective advocate
>
> >> Yeah, that's exactly what you're doing.
>
> > Irrelevant,
>
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant.

No, it is irrelevant.

> > given that you're the one repeating mistakes, not me.
>
> What alleged mistakes, Lucien?  How ironic, coming from someone
> repeating mistakes.

Irrelevant and illogical, given that the only one repeating his
mistakes is 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]                                    24-Oct-99 03:25:12
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 05:23:23
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Gerben Bergman <[e-mail]>

On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:06:05 GMT, Drestin Black, while summoning a demon,
chanted:

| You really should get a sense of humor...

A clue would be nice, too. :)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          24-Oct-99 03:12:28
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 05:23:24
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Ian 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

You know, I think (and have demonstrated beyond a doubt with my
"digest" of Tholen's nonsense), that Tholen is a babbling idiot who
lacks even minimal common sense.

But now, I honestly believe him to be suffering from severe mental
illness as well. His usenet postings reveal the ramblings of an
extremely disturbed person -- someone whose anti-social nature is
quite pathological.

No wonder why he and Tim Martin seem to be "buddies". They're both
psychotic

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          24-Oct-99 03:16:04
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 05:23:24
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>

>In article <[e-mail]>,
>  Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> [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?
>
>Well, everyone (except Dave) knows the answer to that question, right?
>
>It took some years, but Dave finally lost his few remaining marbles.

Seriously, I wonder if he ever really had them. I strongly suspect
that he was severely abused as a child. It takes a series of
psychologically traumatic events, spanning years, to develop the
extremely anti-social, demented behavior exhibited by Tholen. He's not
at all well

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          24-Oct-99 03:21:26
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 05:23:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>[e-mail]
>Meanwhile, you're continuing your "infantile game",
>following me around into different threads like a puppy

Tholen is definitely an idiot (not to mention a hypocrite, but
everyone pretty much knows that). Only an idiot would utter the above,
after posting the following:

From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Dallas/Fort Worth OS/2 User's Group Meeting
Date: 7 Mar 1997 18:34:39 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Message-ID: <5fpn3v$[e-mail]>

If he won't address the disinformation in the
thread in which he made it, I'll follow him into other threads.

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

I've been documenting Tholen's nonsense for awhile. That's why I
understand the extent of his hypocrisy and foolishness. But frankly, I
believe that his behavior has crossed over into mental illness

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          24-Oct-99 03:30:04
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 05:23:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>>>Mike Timbol
>>>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.

>>Ian "The Moron" Tholen
>>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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

You know, Mike, you're quite good at exposing Tholen to be an ignorant
numbskull. And you do with style -- something that Tholen lacks
because he's a witless, untalented dullard with personality problems
that underscore some sort of mental illness

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     23-Oct-99 22:21:05
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 05:23:24
Subj: Re: ...when they killed the Warp 5 client.

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

Kelly Robinson wrote:
>
> Anther blind nitwit.   They still don't get it.  IBM has always sold generic
> rubbish technology, but used the facade of great support (at least they did
> in the past) to make themselves the undeserving giant they are.
>
> Read it up, I'm not lying.

Sure.  Send me the URL(s).

The NYTimes relies on IBM's web page for patents when the Times wants to
research patents.  (The Times recently released their web resource list
to the public).
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/reference/cynavi.html
http://www.patents.ibm.com/
IBM is offering their web service as a PR gimmick to highlight IBM's
long list of technology patents.  I'd be glad to see Kelly Robinson's
web references to IBM's generic rubbish technology - maybe Kelly
Robinson can share with us what he reads.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     23-Oct-99 22:27:07
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 05:23:24
Subj: Re: Giga says Win2k worth the money

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

Kelly Robinson wrote:
>
> 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.

I do not recall.  Maybe you can help me recall the reasons.  I used all
OS versions and would like to know what facts hide behind Kelly
Robinson's vague speak.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     23-Oct-99 22:32:13
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 05:23:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

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

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Joseph Coughlan writes:
>
> >> Mike Timbol writes:
>
> >>> I'll just reply to both articles here, to avoid too much repetition.
>
> >> You can do better than that, Mike.  Why not simply invoke your usual
> >> deletion tactic and get rid of *all* the repetition?  In fact, why
> >> not simply address the original issue?
> >>
> >> Fact # 1:  Joseph said that 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.
> >> Fact # 2:  That could be interpreted to mean either "some" or "all"
> >>            of the functionality.
> >> Fact # 3:  You claimed that Joseph is wrong.
> >> Fact # 4:  IBM explicitly used 1.1.8 as the version number, not 1.2.
> >> Fact # 5:  It is illogical to use the older version number if your
> >>            product supports all of the functionality of the newer
> >>            version number.
> >> Fact # 6:  Fact #5 allows you to eliminate "all" from the list of
> >>            possible interpretations of Joseph's statement.
> >> Fact # 7:  That leaves "some" as the only logical interpretation
> >>            of Joseph's statement.
> >> Fact # 8:  You admitted that 1.1.8 implements some of the Java 1.2
> >>            functionality.
> >> Fact # 9:  You are therefore in agreement with the only logical
> >>            interpretation of Joseph's statement.
> >> Fact #10:  Facts #3 and #9 contradict one another.  Both cannot
> >>            be right.
> >> Fact #11:  I claimed that you are wrong.
> >> Fact #12:  Fact #10 proves my claim.
>
> > Possibility #1: Quote a post following usenet guidelines.  Keep the
> >                 post in its context.  Do not quote one short sentence.
> >
> > Possibility #2: When characterizing a post and its meaning, quote the
> >                 text if you are interpreting what the author indented
> >                 and paraphrasing the post.
>
> You're responding to me, but I presume your comments are directed
> toward Mike Timbol.

I wanted to add on to what you wrote.  IMHO it would have been possible
for Mr. Timbol to have quoted more than one sentence and thus had left
my sentence in its context.  I decided that responding directly to Mr.
Timbol would encourage him.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             24-Oct-99 07:54:03
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 05:23:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

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.

>>>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word
>>>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>>>> DT]
>>>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>>>> DT] playing a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>> Irrelevant, given that the alleged game has not been proven to
>>>>> exist.

>>>> Incorrect; see above for the evidence.

>>> No, correct.

>> Balderdash.

> Nope, correct.

Balderdash.

>>> The above is merely a repetition of your illogical responses.

>> Feel free to identify the alleged illogic, if you think you can.

> See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for examples of your
> illogical reasoning.

Neither of those threads have examples of my allegedly illogical
reasoning, Lucien.

>> Meanwhile, I certainly didn't have any trouble identifying the
>> illogic of your response.

> On the contrary, you've been completely unable to do this, as always.

Incorrect, given the existence of my explanations that demonstrate the
illogic of your response and the lack of any counter-explanation from
you.

>>>>> The logic has run out,

>>>> You haven't used any yet.

>>> Irrelevant, given that only your illogic is at issue.

>> What alleged illogic of mine, Lucien?

> See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for examples.

Neither of those threads have examples of my alleged illogic, Lucien.

>> Meanwhile, I certainly didn't have any trouble identifying the
>> illogic of your response.

> On the contrary, you've been completely unable to do this, as always.

Incorrect, given the existence of my explanations that demonstrate the
illogic of your response and the lack of any counter-explanation from
you.

>>>>> so David repeats his mistaken assertion over and over.

>>>> What allegedly mistaken assertion, Lucien?

>>> See above.

>> The above doesn't identify my allegedly mistaken assertion, Lucien.

> It does.

Balderdash.

>>>>> Typical.

>>>> Typical that you would play a game,

>>> On the contrary, I'm merely countering your illogical reasoning.

>> What allegedly illogical reasoning of mine, Lucien?

> See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for examples.

Neither of those threads have examples of my allegedly illogical
reasoning, Lucien.

>> Meanwhile, I
>> certainly didn't have any trouble identifying the illogic of your
>> response.

> On the contrary, you've been completely unable to do this, as always.

Incorrect, given the existence of my explanations that demonstrate the
illogic of your response and the lack of any counter-explanation from
you.

>>>> in which you claim evidence for the present situation is in a
>>>> thread from years ago.

>>> Nevertheless, it is present in the "costly mistakes" thread, in
>>> full.

>> Illogical.

> It is present

Where, allegedly?

> and logical.

Incorrect.  Note your failure to identify the allegedly analogous word,
Lucien.

>>  You can't have known about the present situation years ago,

> Irrelevant,

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given your claim that the older
thread identifies the allegedly analogous word in the present situation.

> given that the analysis and proof of the data does not depend on any
> chronology.

Irrelevant, given that I asked you to identify the allegedly analogous
word, which has nothing to do with some analysis and alleged proof.

>> therefore it's not possible that that thread identifies the allegedly
>> analogous word in the present situation.

> Irrelevant

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given your claim that the older
thread identifies the allegedly analogous word in the present situation.

> and illogical,

On the contrary, it's quite logical, given your claim that the older
thread identifies the allegedly analogous word in the present situation.

> given that the concern is the entire sentence structure (not just
> one word)

On the contrary, my concern is the allegedly analogous word, not the
entire sentence structure.  You claimed that there is an analogous
word, yet you've consistently failed to identify it.

> and there exists no dependence upon a chronology in the analysis
> and proof of either set of data.

Irrelevant, given that I asked you to identify the allegedly analogous
word, which has nothing to do with some analysis and alleged proof.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             24-Oct-99 08:00:04
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 10:19:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

>>>>>> Lucien is also obviously playing a game, as the evidence below
>>>>>> clearly demonstrates.

>>>>> On the contrary, I am merely countering your illogic and
>>>>> irrelevant arguments.

>>>> What alleged illogic and irrelevant arguments of mine, Lucien?

>>> See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for proofs.

>> Neither contains any proofs for the alleged illogic and irrelevant
>> arguments of mine, Lucien.

> On the contrary, both are full of examples of your illogic and
> irrelevancies.

Incorrect, and yet another example of your pontification.

> The "costly mistakes" thread contains detailed evidence of your
> illogical arguments.

Incorrect, and yet another example of your pontification.

>>>>> The exchange below is only more repeated irrelevancies and illogic
>>>>> (from you).

>>>> Incorrect, Lucien.

>>> No, it is correct.

>> Balderdash.

> No, correct.

Balderdash.

>>>> The exchange below demonstrates your illogic,

>>> No, the exchange below merely repeats my countering of your
>>> illogical statements.

>> Impossible, given that I did not make any illogical statements for you
>> to counter.

> Quite possible, given that both this thread and the "costly mistakes"
> thread are full of illogical statements from you.

Incorrect, and yet another example of your pontification.

>>>> given that you tried to use something that occurred before the
>>>> present situation as evidence for a word that allegedly appears
>>>> in the present situation.

>>> An uninformed response,

>> Incorrect,

> No, it is correct.

Balderdash.

>> given that my response is based on information, namely your
>> claim.

> Your response is wrong and therefore uninformed.

Incorrect, and yet another example of your pontification.

>>> given that the analysis and proof of the data in both cases is
>>> independent of any chronology.

>> Illogical,

> No, quite logical.

Balderdash.

>> given that I asked you to point out the allegedly analogous
>> word, not some "analysis and proof of the data".

> Irrelevant, given that the concern is not a singular word, but an
> entire sentence structure.

On the contrary, my concern is the allegedly analogous word, not the
entire sentence structure.  You claimed that there is an analogous
word, yet you've consistently failed to identify it.

>>>>> You lose. Again.

>>>> Pontification doesn't work on me, Lucien.

>>> Again the alleged pontification.

>> Nothing alleged about it, Lucien.

> On the contrary, it is merely alleged.

Incorrect, given the lack of any supporting explanations provided by you.

>> Note the absence of any supporting explanation from you.

> Note the mere allegation of pontification.

The absence of any supporting explanations from you proves that my
statements are not mere allegations.

>>> I've presented only mere countering of your irrelevancies and
>>> illogic.

>> "Mere countering" without supporting explanations is indeed
>> pontification.

> Complete analyses and proofs congruent with the data in question are in
> the "costly mistakes" thread.

Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

>>>> Neither do time warps.

>>> Illogical.

>> Then why does your evidence rely on one, Lucien?

> Illogical question, given that no time warp is involved.

Incorrect, given that the past cannot identify the allegedly analogous
word in the present situation.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             24-Oct-99 08:14:10
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 10:19:13
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail]

Roberto Alsina writes:

>>> Marty wrote:

>>>> I wrote:

>>>>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>>>>>    --Roberto Alsina

>>>> Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual
>>>> would do?

>>> Well, everyone (except Dave) knows the answer to that question,
>>> right?

>> How would you know what everyone thinks, Roberto?

> I am not sure.

What makes you believe that?

> That's why there is a question mark in that sentence.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> It took some years, but Dave finally lost his few remaining marbles.

>> Typical invective, and rather ironic, coming from someone who didn't
>> have enough marbles to compute an average posting rate properly.

> Hey, you are back to "normal", liar Dave.

How ironic, coming from the person who accused me of posting an average
of 134 articles a day, and insisted that he was correct, long after it
had been proven that he was wrong.

> Seems the medication kicked in.

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             24-Oct-99 08:11:03
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 10:19:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

>>>>>> DT] That thread is irrelevant here, given that there is no word
>>>>>> DT] analogous to "prevent" in the present situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LS] Wrong. There is a direct analogy.  The evidence is in
>>>>>> LS] the "costly mistakes" thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DT] Impossible, given that the present situation hadn't occurred
>>>>>> DT] at the time of that thread.
>>>>>> DT]
>>>>>> DT] If any reader has been uncertain that Lucien has simply been
>>>>>> DT] playing a game, there should be no doubt now.

>>>>> Again, the alleged game,

>>>> Again, the proven game.

>>> Wrong.

>> Balderdash, Lucien.

> No, wrong.

Balderdash, Lucien.

>>> I'm merely countering your illogical statements.

>> What allegedly illogical statements of mine, Lucien?

> See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for examples.

Neither thread contains any allegedly illogical statements of mine,
Lucien.

>>>>> when only my countering of your illogic is involved.

>>>> Where did you allegedly counter my alleged illogic, Lucien?  You're

> In this thread and in the "costly mistakes" thread.

Neither thread contains any alleged countering of my alleged illogic,
Lucien.

>>> See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for specific
>>> instances.

>> Neither contains any countering of my alleged illogic, Lucien.

> On the contrary, both contain multiple instances of my countering your
> illogic.

Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

>>>> the one who thinks the word analogous to "prevent" in the present

>>> Illogical,

>> Yes, your thought is illogical.

> No, mine is logical.

Then why did you describe it as illogical with your previous statement?

>> That's what I've been telling you all along.

> And thus you've repeated your mistake again.

Impossible, given that it is not a mistake to tell you that your
argument is illogical.

>>> given that the concern is not a single word,

>> Incorrect.

> On the contrary, this is correct.

Balderdash, Lucien.

>> I claimed that there is no word analogous to "prevent" in

> Illogical, given that the concern is an entire sentence structure and
> not a single word.

On the contrary, my concern is the allegedly analogous word, not the
entire sentence structure.  You claimed that there is an analogous
word, yet you've consistently failed to identify it.

>> the current situation.  You claimed otherwise, yet have failed to
>> identify that allegedly analogous word.

> Illogical, given that the concern is the entire sentence structure (and
> not one word).

On the contrary, my concern is the allegedly analogous word, not the
entire sentence structure.  You claimed that there is an analogous
word, yet you've consistently failed to identify it.

>>> but an entire sentence structure.

>> Changing your claim, Lucien?

> No.

Then why did you previously claim that there is analogous word, rather
than claiming that there is an analogous sentence structure, Lucien?

>>>> situation is in a thread from years ago.

>>> Nevertheless, the proof is there, in full.

>> Illogical.

> No, it is logical.

Balderdash.

>> You can't have known about the present situation years ago,

> Illogical, given that the data in question and the proof exhibit no
> dependence upon any chronology.

Incorrect, given that your alleged proof refers to a thread from
years ago, when you could not have known about the present situation.

>> therefore it's not possible that that thread identifies the allegedly
>> analogous word in the present situation.

> Illogical, see above.

There is nothing above that explains the alleged illogic, Lucien.
Rather, all we have is your redundant pontification.

>>>>  Too bad you've got your chronology backwards.

>>> Too bad you're still lost.

>> How ironic, coming from the person who is lost.

> Illogical, given that the lost soul continues to be (only) you.

Incorrect, and rather ironic, coming from the person who is lost.

>>>>> A mistaken assertion repeated over and over again,

>>>> What allegedly mistaken assertion, Lucien?

>>> See this thread and the "costly mistakes" thread for examples.

>> Neither contains any examples of my allegedly mistaken assertion,
>> Lucien.

> Both are full of mistaken nonsense from you.

Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

>>>>> a typical last resort of the ineffective advocate

>>>> Yeah, that's exactly what you're doing.

>>> Irrelevant,

>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant.

> No, it is irrelevant.

Balderdash.

>>> given that you're the one repeating mistakes, not me.

>> What alleged mistakes, Lucien?  How ironic, coming from someone
>> repeating mistakes.

> Irrelevant and illogical, given that the only one repeating his
> mistakes is you.

Incorrect, Lucien.  I'm not made any mistakes in either thread to
repeat, but you have, namely your failure to understand the
definition of "prevent" and the illogic of using 1.1.8 to describe
a product that might implement the full 1.2 functionality.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             24-Oct-99 08:36:06
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 10:19:13
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail]

Roberto Alsina writes:

>>> Since all the latest quoted material below is either Eliza responses
>>> pasted by Dave Tholen, or Dave Tholen doing his best to sound like
>>> Eliza (he did once try to do that and failed miserably,

>> Incorrect, Roberto; I never tried to sound like Eliza.

> Nonsense.

What makes you believe that?

> You are denying the obvious.

How ironic, coming from the person who denied the evidence that proved
his 134 articles a day figure to be wrong by an order of magnitude.

> Of course you are a liar kook,

How ironic, coming from the person who denied the evidence that proved
his 134 articles a day figure to be wrong by an order of magnitude.

> so that is to be expected.

That explains your actions, Roberto.

>>> so I suppose he used the real thing this time),

>> I extracted responses from a posting that you claimed contained
>> Eliza responses both times, Roberto.  You fell for it the first
>> time, hook, line, and sinker.

> Prove it if you think you can.

See the end of this article, Roberto.  Now you have the evidence to
nominate yourself.

> Your post contained a specific sentence that Eliza could have
> never formed,

My post contained many specific sentences that Eliza did form,
according to both you and Donal Fellows.

> and I specified what your mistake was.

I made no mistake, Roberto.  The mistakes are all yours.

>>> I will not reply to it.

>> What do you consider the posting of yours to which I'm responding,
>> Roberto?

> "it" being the ersatz Eliza, that post was not a response to it.

Incorrect, Roberto.

>>> That would be the act of a kook.
>>> However, I will use this post for a more useful purpose.
>>>
>>> Anyone who argues with Tholen in the future can now use the
>>> following fact: Dave has been proven a liar.

>> Where is this alleged proof, Roberto?

> Your claim to having read the entire post you reply to (and
> remembering it) , and your failure to notice the answer to a question
> *after* it was posted, yet admitting it was the answer.

Where did that allegedly happen, Roberto?

> Charge against which you did not present any defense at the time,
> instead relying on non sequitur quotations.

Where did that allegedly happen, Roberto?

>>> He has also said that what a liar says can be dismissed because
>>> his credibility is diminished.

>> Which means that you can be dismissed, given that you lied about the
>> average number of postings I made each day.

> Wrong != Lie

I see you still haven't bothered to consult Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary, which proves that you're wrong.  Just like last time,
you continue to insist that you're right, even though the proof that
you are wrong has been identified.

>>> So, just call him a liar,

>> But you're a liar, Roberto, which means that your claim can be
>> dismissed.

> Evidence is in this thread, recent and fresh for everyone to
> notice your lie.

What alleged lie, Roberto?

> No need to rely on my claim.

There is a need to rely on your evidence, but you haven't provided
any.

>>> and whenever he tries to argue about it, dismiss him because of
>>> his diminished credibility.
>>> So, now, USENET should be a better place.

>> Are you planning to leave, Roberto?

> Not soon, Pinocchio.

Having more reading comprehension problems, Roberto?  You're not
respnding to Pinocchio.

> By the way, do you authorize me to post your responses to machine
> generated emails?

The email you sent me initially was not machine generated, Roberto.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 1997 16:56:36 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Eliza] What makes you believe that?

RA] Easy: as I have told you several times, you can't prove what a person
RA] thought or intended to do. You just can't prove the existence or
RA] non-existence of a mental image or abstraction!



Date: 9 Mar 1997 16:52:30 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Eliza] What makes you believe that?

RA] That there are two posts where you are replying to what is obviously the
RA] output of an Eliza or Eliza-like program. Want me to post them?



Date: 12 Mar 1997 01:07:21 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Eliza] Are you sure that those are mine?

RA] The address of the poster is yours. I am as sure as you are sure I posted
RA] that article I can't mention about a certain number and you.

Eliza] What makes you believe that?

RA] Believe what?

Eliza] What makes you believe that?

RA] It is pretty hard to do. At least it would be hard for me. Specially
RA] knowing *when* to make that mistake.



Date: 9 Mar 1997 17:05:30 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Eliza] What makes you believe that?

RA] You said nothing in your first post that could be taken as indication of
RA] suspicion.



Date: 15 Mar 1997 06:29:37 GMT
Message-ID: <5gdfkh$[e-mail]>

Eliza] Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

RA] Yes. Too much sex with too beautiful women.

Eliza] What makes you believe that?

RA] The dates in the articles.



If you question the identity of Eliza above, I suggest you take a closer
look at the article that you have pointed to as "evidence" that I
responded to Eliza without realizing it.  Look familiar, Roberto?

Have you enjoyed your chat with Eliza, Roberto?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             24-Oct-99 08:46:17
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 10:19:13
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail]

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.

> Seeing things that aren't there again, David?  Your evidence did not
> support your claim.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>> Still having reading
>> comprehension problems, Eric?

> Illogical.

What makes you believe that?

>>>> Gerben Bergman did a little investigating
>>>> and confirmed that Wayne Strang won.  See
>>>> Message-ID: <[e-mail]

>>> Reading comprehension problems again, Dave?

>> Obviously not.

> See what I mean?

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>> Gerben's post shows that you were the winner:

>> Gerben's post shows that Wayne Strang is the winner.

> Incorrect.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>> See the message
>> referenced above.

> Typical circular reasoning.  Ineffective.

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>>> 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,

> Incorrect.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>> given that I explained why there is nothing illogical about
>> it,

> Your explanation was illogical.

What makes you believe that?

>> while you only make the claim with offering any explanation.

> I have already explained it.  Your failure to comprehend the explanation
> is predictable, David.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>> given that the burden of proof is yours.

>>>> It's already been proven.

>>> Evidence, please.

>> See the referenced message above.

> Typical circular reasoning.  Ineffective.

What makes you believe that?

>>>> The burden to read the proof is yours, Eric.

>>> Argument by assertion again, Dave?

>> Where is the alleged assertion, Eric?

> How ironic.

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>> How predictable.

>> How illogical to refer to a nonexistent assertion.

> You erroneously presuppose a that I made a reference to a nonexisting
assertion.

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>>> 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.

> Illogical.

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>> 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.

> Irrelevant.

What makes you believe that?

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

>>>> I'm puzzled by your fascination with that statement, Eric.

>>> What puzzles you is irrelevant.

>> Incorrect.

> Evidence, please.

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>> What you can prove is relevant.

>> Non sequitur.

> Evidence, please.

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>> 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?

> [Ed: Seems reasonable enough.]

Why not select some other quotations of yours?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             24-Oct-99 12:09:26
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 14:29:20
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7uuea8$nks$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
> > On the contrary, both are full of examples of your illogic and
> > irrelevancies.
>
> Incorrect, and yet another example of your pontification.

Wrong. No pontification has been proven to exist.


> >> given that I asked you to point out the allegedly analogous
> >> word, not some "analysis and proof of the data".
>
> > Irrelevant, given that the concern is not a singular word, but an
> > entire sentence structure.
>
> On the contrary, my concern is the allegedly analogous word, not the

No one word is the concern of the data. Yet more proof that you do not
understand the issue.

> entire sentence structure.  You claimed that there is an analogous
> word, yet you've consistently failed to identify it.

Wrong. I said there was an analogy.
The proof is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

> >> Note the absence of any supporting explanation from you.
>
> > Note the mere allegation of pontification.
>
> The absence of any supporting explanations from you proves that my
> statements are not mere allegations.

Your accusations are mere allegations.

> >>> I've presented only mere countering of your irrelevancies and
> >>> illogic.
>
> >> "Mere countering" without supporting explanations is indeed
> >> pontification.
>
> > Complete analyses and proofs congruent with the data in question
are in
> > the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

See the "costly mistakes" thread for the proof.

> >>>> Neither do time warps.
>
> >>> Illogical.
>
> >> Then why does your evidence rely on one, Lucien?
>
> > Illogical question, given that no time warp is involved.
>
> Incorrect, given that the past cannot identify the allegedly analogous
> word in the present situation.

Illogical, given that no chronological dependence exists. Further proof
you do not understand.

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]                             24-Oct-99 12:20:02
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 14:29:20
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7uueur$nks$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
> >> That's what I've been telling you all along.
>
> > And thus you've repeated your mistake again.
>
> Impossible, given that it is not a mistake to tell you that your
> argument is illogical.

It is a mistake, given that the illogic is committed by you, not me.

> >> I claimed that there is no word analogous to "prevent" in
>
> > Illogical, given that the concern is an entire sentence structure
and
> > not a single word.
>
> On the contrary, my concern is the allegedly analogous word, not the

Your focus is wrong. Again. The concern is the entire sentence
structure.

> entire sentence structure.  You claimed that there is an analogous
> word, yet you've consistently failed to identify it.

I claimed there was an analogy. The proof is in the "costly mistakes"
thread.

> >> the current situation.  You claimed otherwise, yet have failed to
> >> identify that allegedly analogous word.
>
> > Illogical, given that the concern is the entire sentence structure
(and
> > not one word).
>
> On the contrary, my concern is the allegedly analogous word, not the

Your focus is wrong. Again. The concern is the entire sentence
structure.

> entire sentence structure.  You claimed that there is an analogous
> word, yet you've consistently failed to identify it.

I claimed there was an analogy. The proof is in the "costly mistakes"
thread.

> >>> but an entire sentence structure.
>
> >> Changing your claim, Lucien?
>
> > No.
>
> Then why did you previously claim that there is analogous word, rather
> than claiming that there is an analogous sentence structure, Lucien?

Illogical question. See above.

> >> You can't have known about the present situation years ago,
>
> > Illogical, given that the data in question and the proof exhibit no
> > dependence upon any chronology.
>
> Incorrect, given that your alleged proof refers to a thread from
> years ago, when you could not have known about the present situation.

The data are independent of any chronology, as an astute reader (not
you) would note.

> >> therefore it's not possible that that thread identifies the
allegedly
> >> analogous word in the present situation.
>
> > Illogical, see above.
>
> There is nothing above that explains the alleged illogic, Lucien.
> Rather, all we have is your redundant pontification.

Again the alleged pontification.

> >>> given that you're the one repeating mistakes, not me.
>
> >> What alleged mistakes, Lucien?  How ironic, coming from someone
> >> repeating mistakes.
>
> > Irrelevant and illogical, given that the only one repeating his
> > mistakes is you.
>
> Incorrect, Lucien.  I'm not made any mistakes in either thread to

You've repeatedly made mistakes in both threads and you continue to do
so now.

> repeat, but you have, namely your failure to understand the
> definition of "prevent" and the illogic of using 1.1.8 to describe
> a product that might implement the full 1.2 functionality.

Reread your JDK statement and then the "costly mistakes" thread to see
the analogy.

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]                             24-Oct-99 12:29:00
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 14:29:20
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7uuduu$n3o$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
> Neither of those threads have examples of my allegedly illogical
> reasoning, Lucien.

Both are full of illogical reasoning from you.

> >> Meanwhile, I certainly didn't have any trouble identifying the
> >> illogic of your response.
>
> > On the contrary, you've been completely unable to do this, as
always.
>
> Incorrect, given the existence of my explanations that demonstrate the
> illogic of your response and the lack of any counter-explanation from
> you.

Your explanations are wrong, as always.

> >>> Nevertheless, it is present in the "costly mistakes" thread, in
> >>> full.
>
> >> Illogical.
>
> > It is present
>
> Where, allegedly?

In the thread.

> > and logical.
>
> Incorrect.  Note your failure to identify the allegedly analogous
word,
> Lucien.

The entire sentence structure is the issue, not a single word. More
proof that you are lost.

> >>  You can't have known about the present situation years ago,
>
> > Irrelevant,
>
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given your claim that the older

No, it is irrelevant.

> thread identifies the allegedly analogous word in the present
situation.

The older thread provides an analysis and proof based on phrase
structure; a word in isolation does not account for the data in either
the JDK sentence case or the "costly mistakes" case.

Your insistence to the contrary is merely more proof that you do not
understand the issue.

> > given that the analysis and proof of the data does not depend on any
> > chronology.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I asked you to identify the allegedly analogous
> word, which has nothing to do with some analysis and alleged proof.

Wrong. See above.

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]                             24-Oct-99 16:51:05
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 16:44:17
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: [e-mail]

In article <N3sQ3.14103$[e-mail]>,
  "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
> news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-> > >

-- snip --

> > if you want to run around with copper rods during thunderstorms,
> > that's enirely your business.

-- snip --

> You really should get a sense of humor...

Looks like he has one (see double-chevron above). You, OTOH . . .

Oh, yeah, trashing other (i.e., non-Windows) OSes *is* "humor" to you.


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]                             24-Oct-99 14:53:06
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 16:44:17
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta:  Attendance

From: Stanley Sidlov <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] wrote:

> In <[e-mail]>,
"Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]> writes:
> >
> >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.
:=)
>
> The video of the installation is on Compuserve in the OS/2 forum. I wondered
> why Compuserve 2000 was distributed at WarpStock. If there were questions
> about OS/2's viability before WarpStock they were answered loudly by IBM's
> management who sponsored the event. IBM was one of the exhibitors.
>
> http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm
> last update 23 October 1999

Larry Finkelstein(former Warpstock, Inc. President) is the owner of the OS/2
forums on CSi.  CSi sent him a case of CDs for their latest
incarnation of the service, and we decided to distribute  coasters to
everyone. <G>  Larry opened OS/2 Central to the general public
rather than CSi members only.  Using CSi's bandwidth to distribute the video
cast (each video cast is over 1 15 minutes -- where else
could you post them?).  He justified it to CSi by the distribution of their
new CD.





--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Warpstock Board of Directors [Thanks Esther, this
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             24-Oct-99 19:56:10
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 16:44:17
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] writes:

: In article <N3sQ3.14103$[e-mail]>,
:   "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> wrote:

: > <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
: > news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-> > >

: -- snip --

: > > if you want to run around with copper rods during thunderstorms,
: > > that's enirely your business.

: -- snip --

: > You really should get a sense of humor...

: Looks like he has one (see double-chevron above). You, OTOH . . .

: Oh, yeah, trashing other (i.e., non-Windows) OSes *is* "humor" to you.

Just as coming up with new terms to ridicule Microsoft software is
humorous to users of non-Microsoft software.  You see, it's a double edged
sword.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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]                              24-Oct-99 16:25:17
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 19:49:27
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Chad Myers" <[e-mail]>

I think I like Jerry better. At least what Jerry says you can
laugh at.

This Bob moron just makes you mad because you can't believe
that someone could be THAT blind and THAT brainwashed.

--
Chad Myers
--
Have you recompiled your kernel today?


"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:7uqtbs$dsh$[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: Jump.Net (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                 24-Oct-99 21:39:29
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 19:49:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7urvir$psj$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:
>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>>> Simply because there is a difference between imference and implication
>>>>>> does not mean I don't understand the difference.  In this case, Joseph
>>>>>> was clearly implying that the OS/2 JDK 1.1.8 is somehow superior,
>>>>>> due to JDK 1.2 functionality, than other implementations of JDK 1.1.8.
>>>>>> He *did* imply it...
>
>>>>> Incorrect, Mike.  You *did* infer it.
>
>>>> Because it was implied, Dave.
>
>>> Balderdash, Mike.  How did you manage to get inside Joseph's head to
>>> know what he intended?
>
>>" Implied" does not mean "intended".  Go look up the word.
>
>Irrelevant, Mike.  I didn't claim that "implied" means "intended".

Your question above demonstrates your misunderstanding of the word.

>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>>> Not so.  I explained why, in context, the claim is incorrect.
>
>>>>> Incorrect, Mike.
>
>>>> Quite correct.  Why didn't you address that section?  Because you
>>>> couldn't.  So you deleted it,
>
>>> I never deleted that section, Mike
>
>> Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
>> so short -- you deleted most of my post.
>
>That's not the section in question, Mike.

Of course it is, Dave; I'm the one who brought up the section.  Follow
along.

>>>> and repeated your original argument yet again.
>
>>> You haven't comprehended the original argument yet.  Or maybe you did,
>>> realized you lost, and decided to divert attention away from it.
>
>> Your original argument is that "implements JDK 1.2 functionality" implies
>> "some".
>
>Incorrect, Mike.  Note how you've omitted the crucial reference to 1.1.8.
>Here's my real original argument:

Precursor to your "Fact #1:"

Joseph claimed that versions numbers could not be used to judge
functionality.

>Fact # 1:  Joseph said that 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality
>           (note how I included the crucial reference to 1.1.8).
>Fact # 2:  That could be interpreted to mean either "some" or "all"
>           of the functionality.

Fact #2 is incorrect, because if you claim to implement the functionality
of one product in another, it is assumed that all the functionality
is implemented, unless stated otherwise.

>Fact # 3:  You claimed that Joseph is wrong.
>Fact # 4:  IBM explicitly used 1.1.8 as the version number, not 1.2.
>Fact # 5:  It is illogical to use the older version number if your
>           product supports all of the functionality of the newer
>           version number.

Fact #5 is incorrect, because it contradicts the very point that Joseph
was trying to make.  Everything else in your argument false apart.

>Fact # 6:  Fact #5 allows you to eliminate "all" from the list of
>           possible interpretations of Joseph's statement.
>Fact # 7:  That leaves "some" as the only logical interpretation
>           of Joseph's statement.
>Fact # 8:  You admitted that 1.1.8 implements some of the Java 1.2
>           functionality.
>Fact # 9:  You are therefore in agreement with the only logical
>           interpretation of Joseph's statement.
>Fact #10:  Facts #3 and #9 contradict one another.  Both cannot
>           be right.
>Fact #11:  I claimed that you are wrong.
>Fact #12:  Fact #10 proves my claim.
>
>> I've comprehended that argument and I disagree.  If you claim that
>> "Product X implements JDK 1.2 functionality", people expect that the
>> functionality of JDK 1.2 is implemented.
>
>See facts #4 and #5, Mike.

Seee the point of Joseph's post.

>>>> Do you understand what the word "some" means?  A portion thereof.
>>>> "Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2" is not equal to "the functionality
>>>> of JDK 1.2".
>
>>> Irrelevant, Mike, given that the statement in question is "Java 1.2
>>> functionality.  Quit twisting the words around.  In the real case,
>>> "Java 1.2 functionality" and "some Java 1.2 functionality" are
>>> logically equivalent, because it is illogical to give the product
>>> the version number 1.1.8 if it implements "all" of the Java 1.2
>>> functionality.  You have yet to counter that logic, Mike.
>
>> On the contrary, I counter it by pointing you back to the point of
>> the original post.
>
>Still having reading comprehension problems, Mike?  I wasn't talking about
>the point of your post.

It's you who are having the reading comprehension problems, Dave; I wasn't
referring to the point of *MY* post, I was referring to the point of
*JOSEPH'S* post.

>>>>>> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes Java 2 security classes.
>
>>>>> That's because it does, Mike.
>
>>>>   New to this release are security enhancements based on the Java 2
>>>>   security model; ...
>
>>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
>
>> As I stated, your newsgroup article is outdated, published before
>> JDK 1.1.8 was released.  It is superceded by IBM's current description,
>> which I have quoted.
>
>Exactly where did that quotation come from, Mike?

IBM's web site.  I've said that before?  Are you stupid?

>>>> Note that they do not refer to it as "the Java 2 version of Swing".
>
>>> They refer to it as:
>>>
>>> ] functions from Sun's Java 2 technology
>
>> No, they don't.  They claimed that the JDK implements selected functions
>> from Sun's Java 2 technology.  Nowhere did they claim that Swing was one
>> of those functions.
>
>Note the use of the plural, Mike:  functions.

  "We've chosen several people from the East Coast to work at our Firm.
   Our firm includes Boston Bob, John, my cousin Fred, and Bill."

Is Bill from the East Coast?  It doesn't say that.

>> You inferred that from the press release.
>
>You should have said "the press release implied it", to be consistent
>with your previous argument, Mike.

On the contrary, the inference is your own -- it is not stated in the
article.

>>>> It is not.
>
>>> You claimed that it requires new features that aren't in 1.1.8, Mike.
>>> Obviously there is something new to Swing in Java 2.
>
>> There *is* something new to Swing in Java 2.  Those features are not
>> implemented in Swing for IBM's JDK 1.1.8.
>
>Prove it, Mike.

See IBM's description of the Swing that they include.

>>>> Note that they do not refer to them as "the Java 2 versions of
>>>> RMIM-IIOP and the Java COMM API".
>
>>> They refer to them as:
>>>
>>> ] functions from Sun's Java 2 technology
>
>> No, they don't.  That's your incorrect interpretation.
>
>Incorrect, Mike; that's a verbatim excerpt.

Then why don't you do us all a favor and show me the verbatic excerpt
that refers to RMI-IIOP and the Java COMM API in the same section as
"Java 2"?  Simply because "Java 2" and "the Java COMM API" appear in
the same newsgroup article does not mean "the Java COMM API is part
of Java 2".

>>>> They are not.
>
>>> Prove it, Mike.
>
>> I already have, Dave.
>
>> Since Java 2 was released in 1998, RMI-IIOP was obviously not in it.
>
>It is now, Mike, and IBM implemented that functionality in 1.1.8.

Prove it, Dave.  I've shown you my proof, which you've deleted.  Where's
yours?

>> Gee, since Sun explicitly states that it will not be part of the core
>> JDK, it obviously isn't in Java 2, either.
>
>Are you trying to say that nothing outside of the core can be considered
>part of Java 2, Mike?

Dave, it was *YOUR* argument that the only things that can be considered
"Java 2 functionality" are things that were newly introduced in JDK 1.2.
The Java COMM API does not qualify, as I've proven, though you have
again deleted the evidence without comment.

>>>> Fortunately, IBM's JDK 1.2 is scheduled to be available for OS/2 in
>>>> "Early 2000", and it *will* implement JDK 1.2 functionality.  Of course,
>>>> IBM's JDK 1.2 for Windows is scheduled to be released "Late 4Q 1999".
>
>>> Irrelevant, Mike, given that we're not discussing that.
>
>> We're discussing JDK 1.2 functionality.  I'm letting you know when it
>> will be available from IBM.  I'm sure they'll do a good job.
>
>Yet more diversion from the original issue.

You're welcome not to discuss it, then.

>>>> "Premiere platform" indeed.
>
>>> The fastest around.
>
>> I see you are demonstrating your ignorance once again.  In most areas,
>> IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for Windows is faster than their JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2, as
>> shown by IBM's own tests.
>
>How many is "most", Mike?

All but one.  "Premiere platform" indeed.

>>>> Interestingly, you base your "reality" on an incorrect and outdated
>>>> press release, while refusing to address the current, updated
description.
>
>>> You haven't pointed to any document, Mike.
>
>> I've quoted a document.  It's on IBM's web site.
>
>You said you didn't need to run the JDK to look at the contents, thereby
>"implying" (to use your definition) that the document is a part of the
>JDK, Mike.

Not at all.  It's on IBM's web site.

>> What's the matter, you couldn't find it?
>
>What makes you ask that, Mike?

The fact that you keep asking for a reference.  If you really can't
find it, just let me know and I'll give you the URL.

>>>> Clinging to the past will get you nowhere.
>
>>> Pontificating will get you nowhere.
>
>> Quoting IBM is not "pontificating".
>
>Alleged quotes.  I provided a reference to my quotations of IBM.  You
>have not.  Note the difference.

I point you to IBM's web site.  Originally, you claimed that that was
a reference.  Are you changing your mind now?

     - Mike




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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 24-Oct-99 21:48:06
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 19:49:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7ursl8$psj$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>> Read the rest of the article, Mike.
>
>> I did, Dave.
>
>You said you couldn't find it, Mike.  Do make up your mind.

Dave, try and understand the concept that things change with time.

>>> Some lines up you claimed that Swing for 1.1.8 has identical
>>> functionality to Swing for 1.2,
>
>> Bullshit.  I never claimed that at all.
>
>Liar:
>
>MT] They provide the same functionality and they implement the same API.

The quote refers to OS/2's Swing vs. other implementations of Swing
for JDK 1.1.8.  Understand context, Dave.  I did not say that OS/2's
Swing provided the same functionality as the Swing in JDK 1.2.  That's,
once again, your misinterpretation.

>> You cannot use the message-ID of an article to find it with deja.com,
>> Dave.
>
>You don't need the message ID, Mike.  I certainly didn't.

All you had provided was the message-ID.  Go look at your original
references to it.  No quotation from the article at all.  Thus, I could
not find the article, since you cannot use the message-ID to find it.

>> Since all you had provided was the message-ID, there was no way
>> to find the article in question.
>
>Liar:
>
>I provided a relevant quotation.

What are you doing, quoting yourself?  You did not provide any
quotations from the article in your original reference to it.  All
you provided was the message-ID.

     - Mike


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

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

From: [e-mail]                              24-Oct-99 22:40:14
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 21:21:05
Subj: Re: ...when they killed the Warp 5 client.

From: Brad Barclay <[e-mail]>

Jerry McBride wrote:

> I just read this post on an OS/2 mailing list and it deserves the light of
day
> in a public forum...
>
> I'll stand by my OS/2 commitment, but not to the those that "run the show"
at

> IBM. The gentleman that posted this message, could probably lead a sucessful

> attack on both MicroSloth and IBM main HQ... :') and be back in time for
tea...
>
> ---- quote starts here ----
>
> Well, IBM closed today at 91.
>
> That's down $44 since Sept 16, when they killed the Warp 5 client.

    Of course, the fact that on the same day some major IBM resellers
announced an
expected reducion in YTY profits probably had nothing to do with this.

    Plus the fact that about $25 of this was lost in the last week just after
IBM
announced it's mixed 3rd Quarter results probably didn't have much to do with
this
either :).

    I seriously doubt that any IBM shareholders sold IBM because of an
announcement
about OS/2 they probably never even heard in the first place.

    I won't defend IBM's OS/2 track record, but trying to equate that record
with
their current stock price is silly, and lacks any logic.  I mean, sure one
could
claim that the seagull that landed on the bow of the Titanic caused it to
sink, if
they didn't see the iceberg it ran into, but that wouldn't make the assessment
correct.

Brad BARCLAY


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  24-Oct-99 18:50:25
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 21:21:05
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Tholen, who claims he's something like a <[e-mail]>, tholened:

> How ironic, coming from the person who denied the evidence that proved
> his 134 articles a day figure to be wrong by an order of magnitude.

So tell us, Tholen, just how many messages you *have* posted within a
24-hour period (I counted over 100 and I didn't see 'em all!).  That
figure -- 134 -- seems just about right.  Hypocrite.  Liar.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                          24-Oct-99 15:33:00
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 21:21:05
Subj: Re: IBM Licenses SciTech Graphics Technology!

From: [e-mail] (Kendall Bennett)

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] says...

> > [e-mail] (Kendall Bennett) wrote:
>
> > Actually we have a news group on our server that you can access at:
> >
> >  new://news.scitechsoft.com/scitech.display.doctor.os2.beta
> >
> > This is where you will get the best response from your question, and more
> > importantly if you don't get a response we will at least read your
> > problem report and act on it. You can also access those newsgroups via
> > our web page if you wish, using our new web/news gateway.
>
> Noblesse oblige, I learned. If you want to become part of the
> OS/2 community you should be here. You are no longer just a
> supplier of an alternative technology you have because of this
> agreement become (partly) part of the OS/2 world. By the way I
> seem to remember that members of this community made it possi-
> ble for you to enter this market. As I said, how about returning the
> favor? Further you overstep the possibility that there are people with
> newsreaders (<VBG> ProNews 1.0 Gold i.e.but beta 1.5 has it) who
> cannot enter several servers into their system (or don't know how to).

You have completely lost me on this one. You message seems to indicate
that I should provide some other mechanism for users to access our
newsgroup, for brain dead news readers like ProNew? That is *why* we have
our web/news gateway. You can read and post news to our newsgroups
directly from our web site.

Did I miss something here?

--

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|      SciTech Software - Building Truly Plug'n'Play Software!         |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kendall Bennett          | To reply via email, remove nospam from    |
| Director of Engineering  | the reply to email address. Do NOT send   |
| SciTech Software, Inc.   | unsolicited commercial email!             |
| 505 Wall Street          | ftp  : ftp.scitechsoft.com                |
| Chico, CA 95928, USA     | www  : http://www.scitechsoft.com         |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: SciTech Software, Inc. (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                            24-Oct-99 18:50:16
  To: All                                               24-Oct-99 21:21:05
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: "Mark" <[e-mail]>

<jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-u6KZ4IGErkdC@localhost...
> Haven't you heard? Microsoft is closing down MVP. They probably
don't
> have the greens anymore. Windows advocacy suddenly becomes a lot
less
> fun when you don't get paid for it anymore <G>.

Apparently you don't understand what the MVP program is.  It's a
technical support program, not an advocacy program.  MVP's are
recognized experts in their field who are recognized by MS as
contributors to the MS public newsgroups (microsoft.public.*) that are
hosted on MS's news server nntp://msnews.microsoft.com.  Additionally,
MVP's were volunteers.  Unpaid.

If you'd like to read up on the program see:

http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/press/1996/apr96/nwsgrppr.htm



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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     24-Oct-99 18:19:21
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 03:26:08
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>

The MVP has been called an advocacy program.  Advocates do provide help.
According to the news, the MVP program participants earn some sort of
credit and these credits will expire Dec 1st.  They seem to have some
value in terms of acquiring MS products like free MSDN and access to MS
HTML experts.

Mark wrote:

> <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
> news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-u6KZ4IGErkdC@localhost...
> > Haven't you heard? Microsoft is closing down MVP. They probably
> don't
> > have the greens anymore. Windows advocacy suddenly becomes a lot
> less
> > fun when you don't get paid for it anymore <G>.
>
> Apparently you don't understand what the MVP program is.  It's a
> technical support program, not an advocacy program.  MVP's are
> recognized experts in their field who are recognized by MS as
> contributors to the MS public newsgroups (microsoft.public.*) that are
> hosted on MS's news server nntp://msnews.microsoft.com.  Additionally,
> MVP's were volunteers.  Unpaid.
>
> If you'd like to read up on the program see:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/press/1996/apr96/nwsgrppr.htm

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                      25-Oct-99 01:19:21
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 03:26:08
Subj: Re: cincyteamos2?

From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])

Esther Schindler? ([e-mail]?) wrote (24 Oct 1999 20:20:22 GMT):
>few long diatribes about the requirement of a user group to charge
>dues. The ones that don't charge dues fade away. The ones that charge
>something, however modest, have a much better chance of making it.

Or, those that can charge a fee are worth paying the fee to, and so
it continues.  Those that aren't worth the fee aren't going to stay
around anyway.  But, still, OS/2 users are hard enough to find, and
if you can't keep all of them the outfit is in trouble (it's not like
there are more where they came from).

>It has little to do with the group's need for money. I think it's a
>kind of commitment on the part of the user... you paid something to
>belong, you might as well show up at the meeting and "get your money's
>worth."

Doubt that, at least I wouldn't.  If it wasted my time, it wouldn't
matter how much $ I wasted on it (see: throwing good money at bad).

>At least you _can_ get to a user group meeting, Dale, even if it's 90
>miles away. That's not the case for several members of the Phoenix
>OS/2 Society... we have members in 19 countries and nearly every U.S.
>state. (Know any OS/2 users in South Dakota?)

How about breaking it all down, as in numbers per country/state?  It's
easy to say "my [product] is in five (or six) continents", but that's
just so much hooey, and only brought up because there's nothing else
to bring up.






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

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

From: [e-mail]                            25-Oct-99 02:29:27
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 03:26:09
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

"Joseph" <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> The MVP has been called an advocacy program.  Advocates do provide help.
> According to the news, the MVP program participants earn some sort of
> credit and these credits will expire Dec 1st.  They seem to have some
> value in terms of acquiring MS products like free MSDN and access to MS
> HTML experts.

No Joseph that is no accurate. It has been called an advocacy program by
folks like yourself, people that do not know any better. The MVP was always
an online support program. If you are interested in knowing the real facts,
you can read the brochure about the program. Microsoft has not taken it
down... yet... I expect it will be pulled once they realize they have left
it up.

http://www.microsoft.com/supportnet/supportpartners/mvps/brochuregeneral.htm

Dale


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

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

From: [e-mail]                24-Oct-99 22:53:04
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 03:26:09
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (tholenbot)

In article <7uuh1a$nks$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
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.
>
> >> I see you failed to comprehend my evidence.
>
> > Seeing things that aren't there again, David?  Your evidence did not
> > support your claim.
>
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

Aren't you certain?

> >> Still having reading
> >> comprehension problems, Eric?
>
> > Illogical.
>
> What makes you believe that?

What makes you believe that I believe that?

> >>>> Gerben Bergman did a little investigating
> >>>> and confirmed that Wayne Strang won.  See
> >>>> Message-ID: <[e-mail]
>
> >>> Reading comprehension problems again, Dave?
>
> >> Obviously not.
>
> > See what I mean?
>
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

Non sequitur.

> >>> Gerben's post shows that you were the winner:
>
> >> Gerben's post shows that Wayne Strang is the winner.
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

Non sequitur.

> >> See the message
> >> referenced above.
>
> > Typical circular reasoning.  Ineffective.
>
> What makes you believe that?

What makes you believe that I believe that?

> >>>>>>>> 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,
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

Non sequitur.

> >> given that I explained why there is nothing illogical about
> >> it,
>
> > Your explanation was illogical.
>
> What makes you believe that?

What makes you believe that I believe that?

> >> while you only make the claim with offering any explanation.
>
> > I have already explained it.  Your failure to comprehend the explanation
> > is predictable, David.
>
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

Aren't you certain?

> >>>>> given that the burden of proof is yours.
>
> >>>> It's already been proven.
>
> >>> Evidence, please.
>
> >> See the referenced message above.
>
> > Typical circular reasoning.  Ineffective.
>
> What makes you believe that?

What makes you believe that I believe that?

> >>>> The burden to read the proof is yours, Eric.
>
> >>> Argument by assertion again, Dave?
>
> >> Where is the alleged assertion, Eric?
>
> > How ironic.
>
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

Non sequitur.

> >>> How predictable.
>
> >> How illogical to refer to a nonexistent assertion.
>
> > You erroneously presuppose a that I made a reference to a nonexisting
assertion.
>
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

Non sequitur.

> >>>>>>>> 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.
>
> > Illogical.
>
> What makes you believe that?

What makes you believe that I believe that?

> >>>>>> 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.
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> What makes you believe that?

What makes you believe that I believe that?

> >>>>> I do not "approve" phrases.
> >>>>> -Dave Tholen
>
> >>>> I'm puzzled by your fascination with that statement, Eric.
>
> >>> What puzzles you is irrelevant.
>
> >> Incorrect.
>
> > Evidence, please.
>
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

I see you weren't able to provide any evidence to support your erroneous
claim.  Predictable.

> >>> What you can prove is relevant.
>
> >> Non sequitur.
>
> > Evidence, please.
>
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

I see you weren't able to provide any evidence to support your erroneous
claim.  Predictable.

> >>>> 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?
>
> > [Ed: Seems reasonable enough.]
>
> Why not select some other quotations of yours?

Why not select that one?

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                           24-Oct-99 23:31:02
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 03:26:09
Subj: Re: IBM Licenses SciTech Graphics Technology!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 10/24/99 at 03:33
PM,
   [e-mail] (Kendall Bennett) said:

> You have completely lost me on this one. You message seems to indicate
> that I should provide some other mechanism for users to access our
> newsgroup, for brain dead news readers like ProNew? That is *why* we
> have  our web/news gateway. You can read and post news to our newsgroups
>  directly from our web site.

Kendall, you have to consider the source to which you wrote the above
reply. It was from a certifiable moron.

>Did I miss something here?

The court hearing where he was found incompetent to breath without a
headset constantly repeating, "Breathe in. Breathe 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]                               24-Oct-99 23:48:17
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 03:26:09
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Joe Malloy wrote:
>
> <[e-mail]> tholened:
>
> > Timbologic, as opposed to real logic.
>
> And as opposed to Tholenlogik(tm).

Heh... is that like "Froot Loops", where they couldn't call it "Fruit
Loops" on the grounds that it would be false advertising?  ;-)

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               25-Oct-99 00:16:23
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 03:26:09
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.
>
> Balderdash, Marty.  My postings don't allow you to conclude that I was
> pretending.

They certainly do, as I have concluded such a thing from your postings
and nothing prevented me from doing so.

> > Are you telling me what I'm allowed to conclude and what I'm not?
>
> I'm telling you what you can logically conclude.

Quite incorrectly and arrogantly.

> You can reach all the illogical conclusions you want, Marty, if you want to
> look like a fool.

There's been a whole lot of "looking like a fool" around here, but it is
mostly due to those who responded to song lyrics.

> > Funny, but last time I looked, you had no authority over me.
>
> I don't need any authority over you, Marty.

Then you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot conclude,
logically or otherwise.

> >>> Oh, but I forgot... that doesn't work for me, does it?
>
> >> No, it doesn't.
>
> > Again the blatent double-standard.
>
> What alleged double-standard, Marty?

You have, of course, removed any relevant materials that would indicate
such things.

> >>> That only works for you.
>
> >> Where have I concluded that you're pretending, Marty?
>
> > Having trouble recognizing that this statement was generalized?
>
> Having trouble being sequitur, Marty?

Not at all Dave.  You've, of course, removed all context from my
statements by splitting them up individually, questioned them as if they
had nothing to do with one another, and reinterpretted them literally in
a way that suits you.  This allows you to plug your specific instance
into my general statement, and call it "illogical".  It's getting old,
Dave.

> > I'm not surprised.
>
> I'm not surprised that you were apparently non sequitur.

Nor am I surprised that you failed to comprehend my statement.

> >>>>> 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.
>
> I did no such thing, Marty.  I was simply noting that your claim
> "not 'invective'" is incorrect.

How is, "He's on the road to recovery" classifiable as "invective" Dave?

> > How arrogant.
>
> How abusive.

How irrelevant.

> >>> 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.
>
> Illogical, given that your use of "such things" follows your use of
> invective.

Incorrect, as no "invective" was present.

> >>>> 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.
>
> Simple:  read your postings, Marty.

I have, but this failed to provide me with any evidence of an infantile
game.  Perhaps you should substantiate your claim Dave, or perhaps you
should abondon it as you are clearly wrong.

> > You're the one claiming it exists.
>
> I'm looking at it.

That does not prove 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.
>
> It's your game, Marty.

If it's my game, then how come I know nothing of it?

> > How can I, seeing as how it is all in your head?
>
> It's not in my head, Marty.  It's right here in the newsgroup, in plain
> sight for all the readers to see.

Please demonstrate or retract your erroneous claim.

> >>>> 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.
>
> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

See above.

> > The evidence you are about to request is above,
>
> What request, Marty?

DT] "Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."

You seem to desire evidence for me to substantiate my claim.

> > 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."
>
> That doesn't prove that I interpret each statement individually, isolated
> from common sense, and staunchly literal when it suits me.

Now read the original, entire paragraph in the context of my posting.
Observe how you split the statement from its context and gave a
staunchly literal interpretation that suited you.

> >>> 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.
>
> Incorrect, Marty, given that I've been correcting erroneous statements
> made by others.

Where?

> >>> 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.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.

Prove that I am following you around Dave.  You cannot, just as Brad
could not prove that you were following him around.  Unless you'd like
to demonstrate even more of a double standard, that is.

> >>>> 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.
>
> Balderdash, Marty.

Has anyone other than you recognized this "truth"?  How then is it
obvious?

> > I have read the "evidence" and it is not obvious to me.
>
> That's your problem, Marty.

Incorrect.  It does not impede me in the slightest.  The problem is with
the "evidence" presented, and/or the presenter.

> When I ask for the word that is allegedly
> analogous to "prevent" in the current situation, and he points to a
> posting from years ago, it's clear that he playing a game, as the
> current situation did not exist years ago.

That's not proof of playing a game, Dave.

> > Seeing as how I qualify as "anyone"
>
> Did you bother to comprehend the evidence, Marty?

Irrelevant to that fact that I do qualify as "anyone".

> > you just lied and can be dismissed.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.

Double standard again.

> >>> 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.
>
> You deleted the relevant text, Marty.  That's your problem.

Apparently the text was so "obviously" "relevant" that I didn't realize
it was relevant.  Perhaps you can reproduce what you perceived to be
"obvious" "evidence".

> > The very fact that you'd need to demonstrate why it's obvious proves
> > that it is not.
>
> On the contrary, it's quite obvious.  That you claim it is not is simply
> more evidence of your own "infantile game".

Incorrect.  The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is
evidence of your own infantile game, as well as arrogance and hypocracy.

> >>> Your "evidence" below does not support this statement.
>
> >> Balderdash, Marty.  Or do you believe in time warps?
>
> > Taking a stab at absurd irrelevancies?
>
> On the contrary, Marty, it's quite relevant.

Incorrect.  "Time warps" are irrelevant to this context, especially
considering how none have been proven to exist.

> > You sure nailed that one.
>
> On the contrary, Marty, you blew that one.

Why would I "blow" anything Dave?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               25-Oct-99 00:33:21
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 03:26:09
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.
>
> >> Then why did you put my name after his, Marty?
>
> > To note that you quoted him.  This is a key point that you
> > apparently missed.
>
> That is a key point whose logic you haven't explained.

The point being that you were the one who quote him umpteen times in the
same posting.  This seems lost on you.  Perhaps you should take another
look at the message in question.

> >>> I was quoting your act of quoting him.
>
> >> You have the direct quotation, Marty, so no indirect quotation is
necessary.
>
> >>> You'll note that I left the attribution to him intact.
>
> >> And I noted that you added an unnecessary one.
>
> > It was quite necessary.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

See above.

> >>>>>>>>>>>> "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.
>
> >> Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>
> > Still erroneously asking irrelevant questions Dave?
>
> Nothing irrelevant about it, Marty.

No reading comprehension problems were demonstrated on my part, Dave.

> >> I didn't indicate any agreement.
>
> > You certainly did.
>
> Where, allegedly?

See below.

> > By using my argument against me, you are inherently agreeing with it.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that the quotation represents an argument.
> Rather, it represents a question.

A question, with a built-in implied answer.  As I stated, you already
know my position on the matter and therefore, the direction the question
was going.  Your use of the same question implies your agreements to the
tenants and circumstances under which it was asked.

> > Why would you write something with which you disagreed?
>
> I haven't disagreed with it either, Marty.  I was asking a question,
> using your text.

No Dave.  You were quoting me, hence the attribution.  If you were
asking a question using my text, you'd have left off the attribution.
But don't let facts get in the way of your irrelevant argument.

> >> I was asking a question using your text for the question.
>
> > And I was making the statement you made in quoting you.
>
> For what purpose, Marty?

For the purpose of demonstrating your hypocracy.  Mission accomplished.

> > You questioned your own quote as to whether it was something a normal,
well
> > adjusted, relaxed individual would do.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.  I was questioning your reuse of the quotation.

Now you change the subject.  How convenient.  We were referring to the
line where you "used [my] words to ask [me] a question", not my quoting
your quote.  Do try to stay focused, Professor.

> > You already know my position on the matter,
>
> Yes.  You believe yourself to be a normal, well adjusted, relaxed
individual.

I'm truely impressed that you were able to come up with that!

> Despite that, you engaged in an action that you associated with someone who
> you claimed is not normal, well adjusted, or relaxed.

Even more impressed!  I did it to prove the point that it is <not>
something done by a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual.  Glad you
agree.

> > so you are inherently agreeing with me.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm demonstrating your own hypocrisy.

How was that done?  You've just demonstrated that your multiple
quotations of Roberto was something that a normal, well adjusted,
relaxed individual would do.  That demonstrates your hypocracy, not
mine.

> >>> Having proved my point,
>
> >> How did you allegedly do that, Marty?
>
> > See above.
>
> The above doesn't show how you proved your point, Marty.

Check again.

> >>> I have eliminated the repetition.
>
> >> You haven't eliminated your "infantile game", Marty.
>
> > Which you haven't substantiated Dave.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.

Where has it been substantiated?  By what means?  "My postings" are not
evidence of an infantile game Dave.

> > Why not keep an open mind and retract your charge until it is proven?
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that it hasn't been proven.

You're erroneously presupposing that I was erroneous by doing so.

> > Could it be because you are a blatent hypocrite with a pronounced double
> > standard?
>
> No, it couldn't.

It's within the realm of possibility for sure.  But I'd never expect
such an arrogant hypocrite to admit that.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             25-Oct-99 17:36:13
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 03:26:09
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:38105861$3$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <7uoqnd$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?
>
I said develop, not provide.  There is a difference.

Learn to read.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: The Internet Group Ltd (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                     24-Oct-99 21:45:19
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 03:26:09
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Dale Ross wrote:

> "Joseph" <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> > The MVP has been called an advocacy program.  Advocates do provide help.
> > According to the news, the MVP program participants earn some sort of
> > credit and these credits will expire Dec 1st.  They seem to have some
> > value in terms of acquiring MS products like free MSDN and access to MS
> > HTML experts.
>
> No Joseph that is no accurate. It has been called an advocacy program by
> folks like yourself, people that do not know any better.

MVP has been called an advocacy program by the computer industry press.  It
walks, and quacks like an advocacy program.   Why deny the term advocacy?
Advocates provide on-line support on the newsgroups.  They provide help at
tradeshows.

> The MVP was always
> an online support program. If you are interested in knowing the real facts,
> you can read the brochure about the program. Microsoft has not taken it
> down... yet... I expect it will be pulled once they realize they have left
> it up.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/supportnet/supportpartners/mvps/brochuregeneral.htm

The facts are being covered in the press including the how mystified many are
at
the termination of the program.  Some speculate that MS wants to enter into
the
service market so they are killing the program.  Others think it is MS's
relatively new President's attempt to gain more control.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         25-Oct-99 04:52:06
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 03:26:09
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.

>>> Seeing things that aren't there again, David?  Your evidence did not
>>> support your claim.

>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> Aren't you certain?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>> Still having reading
>>>> comprehension problems, Eric?

>>> Illogical.

>> What makes you believe that?

> What makes you believe that I believe that?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, 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.

>>> See what I mean?

>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

> Non sequitur.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Gerben's post shows that you were the winner:

>>>> Gerben's post shows that Wayne Strang is the winner.

>>> Incorrect.

>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

> Non sequitur.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>> See the message
>>>> referenced above.

>>> Typical circular reasoning.  Ineffective.

>> What makes you believe that?

> What makes you believe that I believe that?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>> 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,

>>> Incorrect.

>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

> Non sequitur.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>> given that I explained why there is nothing illogical about
>>>> it,

>>> Your explanation was illogical.

>> What makes you believe that?

> What makes you believe that I believe that?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>> while you only make the claim with offering any explanation.

>>> I have already explained it.  Your failure to comprehend the explanation
>>> is predictable, David.

>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> Aren't you certain?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> given that the burden of proof is yours.

>>>>>> It's already been proven.

>>>>> Evidence, please.

>>>> See the referenced message above.

>>> Typical circular reasoning.  Ineffective.

>> What makes you believe that?

> What makes you believe that I believe that?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>> The burden to read the proof is yours, Eric.

>>>>> Argument by assertion again, Dave?

>>>> Where is the alleged assertion, Eric?

>>> How ironic.

>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

> Non sequitur.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> How predictable.

>>>> How illogical to refer to a nonexistent assertion.

>>> You erroneously presuppose a that I made a reference to a nonexisting
>>> assertion.

>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

> Non sequitur.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, 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.

>>>>> Illogical.

>>>> Yet another example of a claim lacking explanation.

>>> Illogical.

>> What makes you believe that?

> What makes you believe that I believe that?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>> 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.

>>> Irrelevant.

>> What makes you believe that?

> What makes you believe that I believe that?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

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

>>>>>> I'm puzzled by your fascination with that statement, Eric.

>>>>> What puzzles you is irrelevant.

>>>> Incorrect.

>>> Evidence, please.

>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

> I see you weren't able to provide any evidence to support your erroneous
> claim.  Predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> What you can prove is relevant.

>>>> Non sequitur.

>>> Evidence, please.

>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

> I see you weren't able to provide any evidence to support your erroneous
> claim.  Predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, 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?

>>>>> The tholenbot never approves phrases.

>>>> Then why don't you quote yourself at the end of your postings?

>>> [Ed: Seems reasonable enough.]

>> Why not select some other quotations of yours?

> Why not select that one?

It doesn't stand out.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               25-Oct-99 01:29:18
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 03:26:09
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.
>
> That's for the benefit of other readers, Marty, who may not be familiar
> with your dishonest acts.

As grateful as I'm sure they all are, you have yet to point out any
dishonest acts on my part.  Meanwhile, if you have dismissed me, then
you would pay me no mind and ignore my postings.  By the way, dismissing
someone is a very close-minded thing to do.

> > Your actions are once again in conflict with your words.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.  There's no conflict.

Wrong again.

> >>> 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.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that you made the claim, Marty, therefore
> the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

I've already substantiated my claim by pointing to your postings.

> > I've already sited your postings as my evidence.
>
> And where were those postings allegedly sited, Marty?  Or did you
> really mean "cited"?

Pardon me professor.  I forgot that because you're perfect, I have to be
too.

> Citing a tiny subset of my postings does nothing
> to support your argument, Marty.

I claim 50% of all of your postings of the last year as my evidence.

> > Present yours or accept my statement.
>
> Unnecessary, Marty, because you made the claim, and therefore the burden
> of proof falls on your shoulders.

Any casual observer can see my obvious evidence.

> >>> I may have missed it.
>
> >> Obviously.
>
> > So present it to me then.
>
> You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
> shoulders, Marty.

Apparently you refuse to bring to light such simple evidence to prove me
incorrect.  My assumption is you do this because you can't.

> >>> 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?
>
> You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
> shoulders, Marty.  I shouldn't need any motivation.

Your motivation should be to clear up misconceptions, FUD, ... as you
have claimed in the past.  But you've obviously lied in making such a
claim.

> >>>>> 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?
>
> You've assumed guilt unless I can prove my innocence.

I've logically concluded guilt based on the evidence at my disposal.

> > I'm stating my observations.
>
> You're making unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.

I'm stating my observations.

> > Your flat rejection of them
>
> With good reason, given that they are not true.

Try again.

> > and admittance that you have dismissed me long ago
>
> Based on your unsubstantiated and erroneous claims, as well as your
> admission that you play an "infantile game".

So I must always play an infantile game if I played one at one time?  By
that reasoning, we are all playing infantile games.  Obviously your
reasoning is flawed yet again.

> > is conclusive evidence of your closed mind, however.
>
> Illogical, Marty.  My mind has been open to all the evidence you've
> provided me.
>
> >>> When you have, I'll retract.
>
> >> That's not how an open mind wor[k]s, Marty.
>
> > How would you know, Dave?
>
> How ironic.

You still haven't addressed how you would no how an open mind works.
I'm not surprised.

> >>>>> 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.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm countering your so-called "points".

You're doing a bang-up job of it.

> >>> 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're the one who claimed that I removed all context and common sense,
> Marty, therefore the burden of proof falls on your shoulders.

I site your postings as my evidence.

> > You have yet to present evidence to the contrary.
>
> You have yet to present evidence.

Incorrect.

> >>> 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.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.

Anyone 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]                               25-Oct-99 01:44:22
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 03:26:09
Subj: Re: ...when they killed the Warp 5 client.

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Jerry McBride wrote:
>
> I just read this post on an OS/2 mailing list and it deserves the light of
day
> in a public forum...
>
> I'll stand by my OS/2 commitment, but not to the those that "run the show"
at
> IBM. The gentleman that posted this message, could probably lead a sucessful
> attack on both MicroSloth and IBM main HQ... :') and be back in time for
tea...
>
> ---- quote starts here ----
>
> Well, IBM closed today at 91.
>
> That's down $44 since Sept 16, when they killed the Warp 5 client.
>
> Any stockholder or employee who believes that Gerstner's strategy of
> "big guys only" makes any sense at all is being proven wrong.

Actually, that drop was due to disappointing earnings from the server
group at IBM.  It had nothing to do with PC's.

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]               24-Oct-99 23:06:26
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 03:26:09
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:29:55 GMT, Dale Ross wrote:

>No Joseph that is no accurate. It has been called an advocacy program by
>folks like yourself, people that do not know any better. The MVP was always
>an online support program. If you are interested in knowing the real facts,
>you can read the brochure about the program. Microsoft has not taken it
>down... yet... I expect it will be pulled once they realize they have left
>it up.

I think the comment was meant to be a bait.   Since there is NO response from
ANYBODY to my offer, I assume the comment regarding MVP was intended to see
if may be nobody was reading the post.

Now, let's not side step the issue at hand: All of you Windows supporters has
been telling us how good Windows are and how secure and non-breakable any of
the Windows OS are, why not show me?   My offer should be a no-brainer for
you guys to make a fortune off me.

I sincerely do not want to make myself look like a fool when I show this to
the military.   We have an oppurtunity to do a demo at a military base and I
fully intend to do the demo as I had indicated.   Obviously I want a
non-biased party to handle the Windows side.

So, if Windows is so great like you guys have been telling us, why not take
my offer?

McCoy? Black? Todd?   Steven?  (I think he's gone)  Anybody?


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

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

From: [e-mail]                25-Oct-99 02:34:22
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 07:11:25
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (tholenbot)

In article <7v0nlt$858$[e-mail]>, Dave "Bennett" Thoeln
[e-mail] 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.
>
> >>>> I see you failed to comprehend my evidence.
>
> >>> Seeing things that aren't there again, David?  Your evidence did not
> >>> support your claim.
>
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>
> > Aren't you certain?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Using a pseudonym, Dave?  How ironic.

> >>>> Still having reading
> >>>> comprehension problems, Eric?
>
> >>> Illogical.
>
> >> What makes you believe that?
>
> > What makes you believe that I believe that?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Eliza?  Hah!  I would appreciate it if you would continue.

> >>>>>> Gerben Bergman did a little investigating
> >>>>>> and confirmed that Wayne Strang won.  See
> >>>>>> Message-ID: <[e-mail]
>
> >>>>> Reading comprehension problems again, Dave?
>
> >>>> Obviously not.
>
> >>> See what I mean?
>
> >> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

> >>>>> Gerben's post shows that you were the winner:
>
> >>>> Gerben's post shows that Wayne Strang is the winner.
>
> >>> Incorrect.
>
> >> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

> >>>> See the message
> >>>> referenced above.
>
> >>> Typical circular reasoning.  Ineffective.
>
> >> What makes you believe that?
>
> > What makes you believe that I believe that?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

> >>>>>>>>>> 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,
>
> >>> Incorrect.
>
> >> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

> >>>> given that I explained why there is nothing illogical about
> >>>> it,
>
> >>> Your explanation was illogical.
>
> >> What makes you believe that?
>
> > What makes you believe that I believe that?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

> >>>> while you only make the claim with offering any explanation.
>
> >>> I have already explained it.  Your failure to comprehend the explanation
> >>> is predictable, David.
>
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>
> > Aren't you certain?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

> >>>>>>> given that the burden of proof is yours.
>
> >>>>>> It's already been proven.
>
> >>>>> Evidence, please.
>
> >>>> See the referenced message above.
>
> >>> Typical circular reasoning.  Ineffective.
>
> >> What makes you believe that?
>
> > What makes you believe that I believe that?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

> >>>>>> The burden to read the proof is yours, Eric.
>
> >>>>> Argument by assertion again, Dave?
>
> >>>> Where is the alleged assertion, Eric?
>
> >>> How ironic.
>
> >> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

> >>>>> How predictable.
>
> >>>> How illogical to refer to a nonexistent assertion.
>
> >>> You erroneously presuppose a that I made a reference to a nonexisting
> >>> assertion.
>
> >> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

> >>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>> Illogical.
>
> >> What makes you believe that?
>
> > What makes you believe that I believe that?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

> >>>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>> Irrelevant.
>
> >> What makes you believe that?
>
> > What makes you believe that I believe that?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

> >>>>>>> I do not "approve" phrases.
> >>>>>>> -Dave Tholen
>
> >>>>>> I'm puzzled by your fascination with that statement, Eric.
>
> >>>>> What puzzles you is irrelevant.
>
> >>>> Incorrect.
>
> >>> Evidence, please.
>
> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>
> > I see you weren't able to provide any evidence to support your erroneous
> > claim.  Predictable.
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

> >>>>> What you can prove is relevant.
>
> >>>> Non sequitur.
>
> >>> Evidence, please.
>
> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>
> > I see you weren't able to provide any evidence to support your erroneous
> > claim.  Predictable.
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

> >>>>>> 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?
>
> >>> [Ed: Seems reasonable enough.]
>
> >> Why not select some other quotations of yours?
>
> > Why not select that one?
>
> It doesn't stand out.

Why do you say it doesn't stand out?

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             25-Oct-99 08:08:17
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 10:31:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

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.

>> Balderdash, Marty.  My postings don't allow you to conclude that I was
>> pretending.

> They certainly do,

Incorrect.

> as I have concluded such a thing from your postings and nothing prevented
> me from doing so.

Your conclusion is illogical, Marty.

>>> Are you telling me what I'm allowed to conclude and what I'm not?

>> I'm telling you what you can logically conclude.

> Quite incorrectly

Balderdash, Marty.

> and arrogantly.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

>> You can reach all the illogical conclusions you want, Marty, if you want to

>> look like a fool.

> There's been a whole lot of "looking like a fool" around here, but it is
> mostly due to those who responded to song lyrics.

Incorrect, Marty.  I'm still waiting for the evidence you claim to have
regarding an alleged line by line response to song lyrics.

>>> Funny, but last time I looked, you had no authority over me.

>> I don't need any authority over you, Marty.

> Then you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot conclude,
> logically

Yes I do, Marty.

> or otherwise.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't claim I have any right, otherwise.

>>>>> Oh, but I forgot... that doesn't work for me, does it?

>>>> No, it doesn't.

>>> Again the blatent double-standard.

>> What alleged double-standard, Marty?

> You have, of course, removed any relevant materials that would indicate
> such things.

Where have I allegedly done that, Marty?

>>>>> That only works for you.

>>>> Where have I concluded that you're pretending, Marty?

>>> Having trouble recognizing that this statement was generalized?

>> Having trouble being sequitur, Marty?

> Not at all Dave.

Then why did you make the statement, Marty?

> You've, of course, removed all context from my statements by splitting
> them up individually,

Incorrect, Marty.  The context is still there.

> questioned them as if they had nothing to do with one another,

Incorrect, Marty.

> and reinterpretted them literally in a way that suits you.

Incorrect, Marty.  I interpreted them in the way that they were written,
Marty.

> This allows you to plug your specific instance into my general
> statement, and call it "illogical".

I used the relevant instance, Marty.  It would illogical to use an
irrelevant instance.

> It's getting old, Dave.

How ironic, coming from someone whose postings "got old" a long time
ago.

>>> I'm not surprised.

>> I'm not surprised that you were apparently non sequitur.

> Nor am I surprised that you failed to comprehend my statement.

You're erroneously presupposing that I failed to comprehend your
statement, Marty.

>>>>>>> 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.

>> I did no such thing, Marty.  I was simply noting that your claim
>> "not 'invective'" is incorrect.

> How is, "He's on the road to recovery" classifiable as "invective" Dave?

Read the dictionary definition, Marty.

>>> How arrogant.

>> How abusive.

> How irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, as the use of abuse is often
what indicates the lack of a logical argument.

>>>>> 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.

>> Illogical, given that your use of "such things" follows your use of
>> invective.

> Incorrect, as no "invective" was present.

Incorrect, as invective is obviously present.

>>>>>> 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.

>> Simple:  read your postings, Marty.

> I have, but this failed to provide me with any evidence of an infantile
> game.

You obviously didn't read enough of them, Marty.

> Perhaps you should substantiate your claim Dave,

I already did, Marty.  I reproduced the following once already:

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?

Here you are quite clearly stating that you do not wish to see my
allegedly "self-absorbed drivel", and you are asking me to keep my
ID consistent so that you can filter them out.

Suddenly you not only wish to see them, you wish to respond to them,
and the filtering process has stopped.

> or perhaps you should abondon it as you are clearly wrong.

Incorrect, as I am clearly right.

>>> You're the one claiming it exists.

>> I'm looking at it.

> That does not prove it exists.

On the contrary, it does, Marty.

>>> You then tell me I'm playing it and tell me that I should know the rules
>>> and how many points I've earned.

>> It's your game, Marty.

> If it's my game, then how come I know nothing of it?

You do know of it, Marty, and your denial is simply part of your game.

>>> How can I, seeing as how it is all in your head?

>> It's not in my head, Marty.  It's right here in the newsgroup, in plain
>> sight for all the readers to see.

> Please demonstrate or retract your erroneous claim.

It's already been demonstrated, Marty, therefore no retraction is
necessary.

>>>>>> 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.

>> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> See above.

The above doesn't change the fact that you made yet another unsubstantiated
and erroneous claim, Marty.

>>> The evidence you are about to request is above,

>> What request, Marty?

> DT] "Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."

That's not a request, Marty.  That's a statement.

> You seem to desire evidence for me to substantiate my claim.

What seems to you is irrelevant, Marty.

>>> 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."

>> That doesn't prove that I interpret each statement individually, isolated
>> from common sense, and staunchly literal when it suits me.

> Now read the original, entire paragraph in the context of my posting.

Doesn't change a thing, Marty.

> Observe how you split the statement from its context

You're erroneously presupposing that I split the statement from its
context, Marty.

> and gave a staunchly literal interpretation that suited you.

On the contrary, I interpreted what you wrote.

>>>>> 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.

>> Incorrect, Marty, given that I've been correcting erroneous statements
>> made by others.

> Where?

In this newsgroup, 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.

>>> Then I'm not following you around, Dave.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> Prove that I am following you around Dave.

I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.  You responded to me, and
for no other reason than to continue with your "infantile game", which is
obvious, given the fact that you have not been addressing the issue of
the thread.

> You cannot, just as Brad could not prove that you were following him
> around.

He didn't claim that I was following him around, Marty, nor was I
following him around.

> Unless you'd like to demonstrate even more of a double standard,
> that is.

Impossible, given that one doesn't exist on my part, Marty.

>>>>>> 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.

>> Balderdash, Marty.

> Has anyone other than you recognized this "truth"?

Yes, Marty.

> How then is it obvious?

By being aware of the following, Marty:

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?

Here you are quite clearly stating that you do not wish to see my
allegedly "self-absorbed drivel", and you are asking me to keep my
ID consistent so that you can filter them out.

Suddenly you not only wish to see them, you wish to respond to them,
and the filtering process has stopped.

>>> I have read the "evidence" and it is not obvious to me.

>> That's your problem, Marty.

> Incorrect.

On the contrary, it is, Marty.

> It does not impede me in the slightest.

Doesn't change the fact that you do have a problem, Marty.  Not all
problem result in an impediment.

> The problem is with the "evidence" presented, and/or the presenter.

There is no problem with my evidence, Marty.

>> When I ask for the word that is allegedly
>> analogous to "prevent" in the current situation, and he points to a
>> posting from years ago, it's clear that he playing a game, as the
>> current situation did not exist years ago.

> That's not proof of playing a game, Dave.

Yes it is, Marty.

>>> Seeing as how I qualify as "anyone"

>> Did you bother to comprehend the evidence, Marty?

> Irrelevant to that fact that I do qualify as "anyone".

It requires the ability to comprehend, Marty.  A newborn baby is also
"anyone", for example.

>>> you just lied and can be dismissed.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> Double standard again.

Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim again.

>>>>> 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.

>> You deleted the relevant text, Marty.  That's your problem.

> Apparently the text was so "obviously" "relevant" that I didn't realize
> it was relevant.

Obviously you did, which is why you deleted it, given that you are also
playing an "infantile game".

> Perhaps you can reproduce what you perceived to be "obvious"
> "evidence".

You're the one who deleted it, Marty.  Fix your own problems.

>>> The very fact that you'd need to demonstrate why it's obvious proves
>>> that it is not.

>> On the contrary, it's quite obvious.  That you claim it is not is simply
>> more evidence of your own "infantile game".

> Incorrect.  The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is
> evidence of your own infantile game,

You're erroneously presupposing the existence of such a fact, Marty, but
I have successfully demonstrated the fallacy of the claim to all the
others who have attempted to use it.

> as well as arrogance

What alleged arrogance, Marty?

> and hypocracy.

There is no such word, Marty, so how can I be guilty of it?

>>>>> Your "evidence" below does not support this statement.

>>>> Balderdash, Marty.  Or do you believe in time warps?

>>> Taking a stab at absurd irrelevancies?

>> On the contrary, Marty, it's quite relevant.

> Incorrect.  "Time warps" are irrelevant to this context,

Incorrect, Marty, given that the chronology si reversed.

> especially considering how none have been proven to exist.

Incorrect, Marty.  I proved that it existed, and you deleted that proof.

>>> You sure nailed that one.

>> On the contrary, Marty, you blew that one.

> Why would I "blow" anything Dave?

To play your "infantile game", Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             25-Oct-99 08:31:16
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 10:31:27
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail]

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.

>> That's for the benefit of other readers, Marty, who may not be familiar
>> with your dishonest acts.

> As grateful as I'm sure they all are, you have yet to point out any
> dishonest acts on my part.

Incorrect.  I've pointed out all the erroneous statements you've made
about me, Marty.

> Meanwhile, if you have dismissed me, then you would pay me no mind
> and ignore my postings.

Illogical, given that other readers may not have dismissed you, which
means there is value in countering your continued lies about me.

> By the way, dismissing someone is a very close-minded thing to do.

Not when the evidence warrants the action, Marty.

>>> Your actions are once again in conflict with your words.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  There's no conflict.

> Wrong again.

Prove it, if you think you can, 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.

>>> If you had nothing to hide, such a simple piece of evidence to gather
>>> would be no sweat and would quell a detractor.

>> That doesn't change the fact that you made the claim, Marty, therefore
>> the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

> I've already substantiated my claim by pointing to your postings.

Not enough of them, Marty.

>>> I've already sited your postings as my evidence.

>> And where were those postings allegedly sited, Marty?  Or did you
>> really mean "cited"?

> Pardon me professor.  I forgot that because you're perfect, I have to be
> too.

I never said that, Marty.  Having more reading comprehension problems?

>> Citing a tiny subset of my postings does nothing
>> to support your argument, Marty.

> I claim 50% of all of your postings of the last year as my evidence.

Prove your claim, if you think you can, Marty.  You clearly wrote
"not done", which means 100 percent do not discuss real issues,
thus 50% does not even come close to serving as evidence.

>>> Present yours or accept my statement.

>> Unnecessary, Marty, because you made the claim, and therefore the burden
>> of proof falls on your shoulders.

> Any casual observer can see my obvious evidence.

Any casual observer can see the failure of your obvious evidence, Marty.

>>>>> I may have missed it.

>>>> Obviously.

>>> So present it to me then.

>> You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
>> shoulders, Marty.

> Apparently you refuse to bring to light such simple evidence to prove me
> incorrect.

You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
shoulders, Marty.

>  My assumption is you do this because you can't.

Illogical, given that not only is your assumption incorrect, you didn't
have to make an assumption, because I already told you why I haven't
done that.

>>>>> 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?

>> You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
>> shoulders, Marty.  I shouldn't need any motivation.

> Your motivation should be to clear up misconceptions, FUD, ... as you
> have claimed in the past.

I'm doing that by challenging you to substantiate your claim.  You
haven't, which means your claim can be dismissed.

> But you've obviously lied in making such a claim.

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.  And to think that
you wrote:

M] As grateful as I'm sure they all are, you have yet to point out any
M] dishonest acts on my part.

I just finished pointing out another dishonest act on your part.

>>>>>>> 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?

>> You've assumed guilt unless I can prove my innocence.

> I've logically concluded guilt based on the evidence at my disposal.

What alleged logic of yours, Marty?

>>> I'm stating my observations.

>> You're making unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.

> I'm stating my observations.

You're stating your lies, Marty.

>>> Your flat rejection of them

>> With good reason, given that they are not true.

> Try again.

Unnecessary.

>>> and admittance that you have dismissed me long ago

>> Based on your unsubstantiated and erroneous claims, as well as your
>> admission that you play an "infantile game".

> So I must always play an infantile game if I played one at one time?

I never said that, Marty.

> By that reasoning, we are all playing infantile games.

Illogical, Marty.

> Obviously your reasoning is flawed yet again.

Such a flawed conclusion is based on your own flawed reasoning, Marty.

>>> is conclusive evidence of your closed mind, however.

>> Illogical, Marty.  My mind has been open to all the evidence you've
>> provided me.

>>>>> When you have, I'll retract.

>>>> That's not how an open mind wor[k]s, Marty.

>>> How would you know, Dave?

>> How ironic.

> You still haven't addressed how you would no how an open mind works.

On the contrary, I have.

> I'm not surprised.

I"m not surprised that you're not surprised, 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.

>>> Again, isolating the above statement from those that followed it.
>>> You're only validating my points.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm countering your so-called "points".

> You're doing a bang-up job of it.

Ambiguous.

>>>>> 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're the one who claimed that I removed all context and common sense,
>> Marty, therefore the burden of proof falls on your shoulders.

> I site your postings as my evidence.

And where is this alleged site, Marty?  Or did you really mean "cite"?

>>> You have yet to present evidence to the contrary.

>> You have yet to present evidence.

> Incorrect.

Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>>>>> 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.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> Anyone who reads your postings has ample evidence to substatiate my
> claim.

Incorrect, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             25-Oct-99 08:55:11
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 10:31:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

>>> On the contrary, both are full of examples of your illogic and
>>> irrelevancies.

>> Incorrect, and yet another example of your pontification.

> Wrong. No pontification has been proven to exist.

Incorrect, given that I've pointed out several instances of your
explanationless statements.

>>>> given that I asked you to point out the allegedly analogous
>>>> word, not some "analysis and proof of the data".

>>> Irrelevant, given that the concern is not a singular word, but an
>>> entire sentence structure.

>> On the contrary, my concern is the allegedly analogous word, not the

> No one word is the concern of the data.

Then why did you indicate that an analogous word exists, Lucien?

> Yet more proof that you do not understand the issue.

Yet more proof that you're trying to change your claim.

>> entire sentence structure.  You claimed that there is an analogous
>> word, yet you've consistently failed to identify it.

> Wrong.

Balderdash.

> I said there was an analogy.

You indicated that there is an analogous word, Lucien.

> The proof is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

Impossible, given that what you did say recently did not exist at the
time of that thread.  Yet another chronological error of yours.

>>>> Note the absence of any supporting explanation from you.

>>> Note the mere allegation of pontification.

>> The absence of any supporting explanations from you proves that my
>> statements are not mere allegations.

> Your accusations are mere allegations.

Incorrect, given that I have included evidence to prove my
accusations, thus they are not allegations.

>>>>> I've presented only mere countering of your irrelevancies and
>>>>> illogic.

>>>> "Mere countering" without supporting explanations is indeed
>>>> pontification.

>>> Complete analyses and proofs congruent with the data in question
>>> are in the "costly mistakes" thread.

>> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

> See the "costly mistakes" thread for the proof.

I can't, given that the alleged proof doesn't exist in that thread.
"See my responses in the 'costly mistakes' thread for proof."

>>>>>> Neither do time warps.

>>>>> Illogical.

>>>> Then why does your evidence rely on one, Lucien?

>>> Illogical question, given that no time warp is involved.

>> Incorrect, given that the past cannot identify the allegedly analogous
>> word in the present situation.

> Illogical, given that no chronological dependence exists.

Incorrect, given that the past cannot identify the allegedly analogous
word in the present situation.

> Further proof you do not understand.

Illogical, for the reasons given above.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            25-Oct-99 09:09:24
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 10:31:27
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:50:32, "Mark" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
> news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-u6KZ4IGErkdC@localhost...
> > Haven't you heard? Microsoft is closing down MVP. They probably
> don't
> > have the greens anymore. Windows advocacy suddenly becomes a lot
> less
> > fun when you don't get paid for it anymore <G>.
>
> Apparently you don't understand what the MVP program is.  It's a
> technical support program, not an advocacy program.  MVP's are
> recognized experts in their field who are recognized by MS as
> contributors to the MS public newsgroups (microsoft.public.*) that are
> hosted on MS's news server nntp://msnews.microsoft.com.  Additionally,
> MVP's were volunteers.  Unpaid.
>
> If you'd like to read up on the program see:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/press/1996/apr96/nwsgrppr.htm
>
>
>
Heh... Yeah, right.

Famous quote: "...but you live in a magical fairyland, full of little
pixies..." (Simpson, H. J.)

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             25-Oct-99 09:04:02
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 10:31:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

>> Neither of those threads have examples of my allegedly illogical
>> reasoning, Lucien.

> Both are full of illogical reasoning from you.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>>> Meanwhile, I certainly didn't have any trouble identifying the
>>>> illogic of your response.

>>> On the contrary, you've been completely unable to do this, as
>>> always.

>> Incorrect, given the existence of my explanations that demonstrate the
>> illogic of your response and the lack of any counter-explanation from
>> you.

> Your explanations are wrong, as always.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>>>> Nevertheless, it is present in the "costly mistakes" thread, in
>>>>> full.

>>>> Illogical.

>>> It is present

>> Where, allegedly?

> In the thread.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>> and logical.

>> Incorrect.  Note your failure to identify the allegedly analogous
>> word Lucien.

> The entire sentence structure is the issue, not a single word.

Then why did you indicate that there is an analogous word, Lucien?

> More proof that you are lost.

Illogical, given that you're erroneously presupposing that your claim
about the issue is correct.

>>>>  You can't have known about the present situation years ago,

>>> Irrelevant,

>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given your claim that the older

> No, it is irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given your claim that the older
thread identifies the allegedly analogous word in the present
situation.

>> thread identifies the allegedly analogous word in the present
>> situation.

> The older thread provides an analysis and proof based on phrase
> structure;

Impossible, given that your analysis ignored the definition of the
word "prevent", therefore there is no proof from you.

> a word in isolation does not account for the data in either
> the JDK sentence case or the "costly mistakes" case.

Irrelevant, given that I never claimed that a word in isolation
does account for the data in either case.  I did claim that the
definition of "prevent" does not allow for some costly mistakes,
given that if a costly mistake occurs, then they weren't prevented.
Meanwhile, you still refuse to acknowledge that definition of the
word.

> Your insistence to the contrary is merely more proof that you do not
> understand the issue.

Your failure to acknowledge the definition of "prevent" is merely more
proof that you do not understand the issue.

>>> given that the analysis and proof of the data does not depend on any
>>> chronology.

>> Irrelevant, given that I asked you to identify the allegedly analogous
>> word, which has nothing to do with some analysis and alleged proof.

> Wrong. See above.

The above doesn't contain any proof that I'm wrong, Lucien.  It does
contain proof that you are wrong.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             25-Oct-99 09:19:10
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 10:31:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Lucien writes:

>>>> That's what I've been telling you all along.

>>> And thus you've repeated your mistake again.

>> Impossible, given that it is not a mistake to tell you that your
>> argument is illogical.

> It is a mistake, given that the illogic is committed by you, not me.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>>> I claimed that there is no word analogous to "prevent" in

>>> Illogical, given that the concern is an entire sentence structure
>>> and not a single word.

>> On the contrary, my concern is the allegedly analogous word, not the

> Your focus is wrong.

Impossible, given that you did indicate that an analogous word exists
in the present situation.

> Again.

You're erroneously presupposing an incorrect focus previously, Lucien.

> The concern is the entire sentence structure.

Looking at the entire sentence structure won't do you any good if you
ignore the definitions of the words contained in the sentence.

>> entire sentence structure.  You claimed that there is an analogous
>> word, yet you've consistently failed to identify it.

> I claimed there was an analogy.

You indicated that there is an analogous word.

> The proof is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

Impossible, given that what you claimed in the present situation had
not yet happened at the time of that thread.  This is the third time
you've made the same chronological error.

>>>> the current situation.  You claimed otherwise, yet have failed to
>>>> identify that allegedly analogous word.

>>> Illogical, given that the concern is the entire sentence structure
>>> (and not one word).

>> On the contrary, my concern is the allegedly analogous word, not the

> Your focus is wrong.

Impossible, given that you did indicate that an analogous word exists
in the present situation.

> Again.

You're erroneously presupposing an incorrect focus previously, Lucien.

> The concern is the entire sentence structure.

Looking at the entire sentence structure won't do you any good if you
ignore the definitions of the words contained in the sentence.

>> entire sentence structure.  You claimed that there is an analogous
>> word, yet you've consistently failed to identify it.

> I claimed there was an analogy.

You indicated that there is an analogous word.

> The proof is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

Impossible, given that what you claimed in the present situation had
not yet happened at the time of that thread.  This is the third time
you've made the same chronological error.

>>>>> but an entire sentence structure.

>>>> Changing your claim, Lucien?

>>> No.

>> Then why did you previously claim that there is analogous word, rather
>> than claiming that there is an analogous sentence structure, Lucien?

> Illogical question. See above.

The above doesn't explain the alleged illogic, Lucien.

>>>> You can't have known about the present situation years ago,

>>> Illogical, given that the data in question and the proof exhibit no
>>> dependence upon any chronology.

>> Incorrect, given that your alleged proof refers to a thread from
>> years ago, when you could not have known about the present situation.

> The data are independent of any chronology,

Your claims are not independent of any chronology.

> as an astute reader (not you) would note.

Typical invective.  I'm not surprised, given the lack of any logical
argument from you.

>>>> therefore it's not possible that that thread identifies the
>>>> allegedly analogous word in the present situation.

>>> Illogical, see above.

>> There is nothing above that explains the alleged illogic, Lucien.
>> Rather, all we have is your redundant pontification.

> Again the alleged pontification.

Nothing alleged about it, Lucien, given that I've noted the lack of
any supporting explanation from you.

>>>>> given that you're the one repeating mistakes, not me.

>>>> What alleged mistakes, Lucien?  How ironic, coming from someone
>>>> repeating mistakes.

>>> Irrelevant and illogical, given that the only one repeating his
>>> mistakes is you.

>> Incorrect, Lucien.  I'm not made any mistakes in either thread to

> You've repeatedly made mistakes in both threads

Yet another example of your pontification.

> and you continue to do so now.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>> repeat, but you have, namely your failure to understand the
>> definition of "prevent" and the illogic of using 1.1.8 to describe
>> a product that might implement the full 1.2 functionality.

> Reread your JDK statement and then the "costly mistakes" thread to see
> the analogy.

Unnecessary, given that there is no analogy.  The word "prevent" does
not allow for a single costly mistake.  The word "implements" does
allow for either "some" or "all" functionality, in the absence of any
other information.  Thus the use of the word "prevent" eliminates any
alleged ambiguity.  Meanwhile, there is additional information that
eliminates the "all" possibility when interpreting the word "implements".
These are not analogous cases.  A definition eliminates ambiguity in
the older case, and the application of logic to the use of 1.1.8 as the
version number eliminates ambiguity in the more recent case.  Quite
different, and not analogous at all.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             25-Oct-99 09:42:10
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 10:31:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>> Read the rest of the article, Mike.

>>> I did, Dave.

>> You said you couldn't find it, Mike.  Do make up your mind.

> Dave, try and understand the concept that things change with time.

What took so long, Mike?

>>>> Some lines up you claimed that Swing for 1.1.8 has identical
>>>> functionality to Swing for 1.2,

>>> Bullshit.  I never claimed that at all.

>> Liar:
>>
>> MT] They provide the same functionality and they implement the same API.

> The quote refers to OS/2's Swing vs. other implementations of Swing
> for JDK 1.1.8.

Such an interpretation is non sequitur, Mike, given that the preceding
discussion involved Swing for 1.2.

> Understand context, Dave.

That's exactly what I did, Mike.

> I did not say that OS/2's Swing provided the same functionality as the
> Swing in JDK 1.2.

My interpretation is consistent with the discussion, Mike.

> That's, once again, your misinterpretation.

Incorrect, Mike.  That is, once again, the result of the application
of logic to a discussion.

>>> You cannot use the message-ID of an article to find it with deja.com,
>>> Dave.

>> You don't need the message ID, Mike.  I certainly didn't.

> All you had provided was the message-ID.

Incorrect, Mike.  I had also provided a quotation.

> Go look at your original references to it.

Irrelevant, Mike.  You claimed that you couldn't find the article
even after I had provided a quotation from it.

> No quotation from the article at all.

Irrelevant, Mike.  You claimed that you couldn't find the article
even after I had provided a quotation from it.

> Thus, I could not find the article,

That's your problem, Mike, not mine.

> since you cannot use the message-ID to find it.

Irrelevant, Mike.  You claimed that you couldn't find the article
even after I had provided a quotation from it.

>>> Since all you had provided was the message-ID, there was no way
>>> to find the article in question.

>> Liar:
>>
>> I provided a relevant quotation.

> What are you doing, quoting yourself?

Do you see any quotation marks around the preceding text, Mike?
If so, get your eyes checked.  If not, why are you asking if I'm
quoting myself?

> You did not provide any quotations from the article in your
> original reference to it.

Irrelevant, Mike.  You claimed that you couldn't find the article
even after I had provided a quotation from it.

> All you provided was the message-ID.

Irrelevant, Mike.  You claimed that you couldn't find the article
even after I had provided a quotation from it.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             25-Oct-99 11:24:07
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 10:31:28
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:

>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>>> Simply because there is a difference between imference and implication
>>>>>>> does not mean I don't understand the difference.  In this case, Joseph

>>>>>>> was clearly implying that the OS/2 JDK 1.1.8 is somehow superior,
>>>>>>> due to JDK 1.2 functionality, than other implementations of JDK 1.1.8.
>>>>>>> He *did* imply it...

>>>>>> Incorrect, Mike.  You *did* infer it.

>>>>> Because it was implied, Dave.

>>>> Balderdash, Mike.  How did you manage to get inside Joseph's head to
>>>> know what he intended?

>>> "Implied" does not mean "intended".  Go look up the word.

>> Irrelevant, Mike.  I didn't claim that "implied" means "intended".

> Your question above demonstrates your misunderstanding of the word.

It does no such thing, Mike.  All you have to go on is what Joseph
actually wrote.  He cannot imply something that he actually wrote,
because implication is indirect.  Thus he can imply only that which
he did not write.  Now, if he did not write it, then how can you know
what he did not write without getting inside his head?

>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>>> Not so.  I explained why, in context, the claim is incorrect.

>>>>>> Incorrect, Mike.

>>>>> Quite correct.  Why didn't you address that section?  Because you
>>>>> couldn't.  So you deleted it,

>>>> I never deleted that section, Mike

>>> Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
>>> so short -- you deleted most of my post.

>> That's not the section in question, Mike.

> Of course it is, Dave; I'm the one who brought up the section.  Follow
> along.

I suggest you follow along, Mike.  Below I've reproduced the *entirety*
of your post to Joseph.  I did not delete most of your post.  In fact,
I responded to everything in your post.  The reason the post was so
short is because *you* quoted only a single line from Joseph's post,
Mike.  The rest must be irrelevant.  You wouldn't delete relevant text,
now would you, Mike?

Now, I fully expect you to delete this particular evidence for your
dishonesty, or else not follow-up at all.  Otherwise, you would have
to either lie again, or admit that you lied.  Of course, if you lie
again, you'll look even more like the fool you are, because the
evidence is particularly damning.

>>>>> and repeated your original argument yet again.

>>>> You haven't comprehended the original argument yet.  Or maybe you did,
>>>> realized you lost, and decided to divert attention away from it.

>>> Your original argument is that "implements JDK 1.2 functionality" implies
>>> "some".

>> Incorrect, Mike.  Note how you've omitted the crucial reference to 1.1.8.
>> Here's my real original argument:

> Precursor to your "Fact #1:"
>
> Joseph claimed that versions numbers could not be used to judge
> functionality.

There's no such claim in the posting of yours to which I responded, Mike:

] From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$[e-mail]>
]
] In article <[e-mail]>, Joseph  <[e-mail]> 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.
]
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
]
]      - Mike

But even if he did make such a claim, it does nothing to change my
argument.  He happens to be correct, because 1.1.8 implements Java
1.2 functionality.  The use of just the 1.1.8 version number alone
does not indicate that such functionality was, in fact, implemented,
therefore the version number cannot be used to judge the functionality
available.  Similarly, there's nothing in the name "FORTRAN 77" to
indicate which extensions, if any, might be supported by the compiler,
thus you cannot determine the extent of the functionality of the
compiler.

>> Fact # 1:  Joseph said that 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality
>>            (note how I included the crucial reference to 1.1.8).
>> Fact # 2:  That could be interpreted to mean either "some" or "all"
>>            of the functionality.

> Fact #2 is incorrect, because if you claim to implement the functionality
> of one product in another, it is assumed that all the functionality
> is implemented, unless stated otherwise.

Incorrect and illogical, Mike.  See Fact #5.

>> Fact # 3:  You claimed that Joseph is wrong.
>> Fact # 4:  IBM explicitly used 1.1.8 as the version number, not 1.2.
>> Fact # 5:  It is illogical to use the older version number if your
>>            product supports all of the functionality of the newer
>>            version number.

> Fact #5 is incorrect, because it contradicts the very point that Joseph
> was trying to make.

Incorrect.  The very point that Joseph was trying to make is that 1.1.8
implements Java 1.2 functionality, Mike.  That's the only point you
chose to include in your response, unless you consider "bummer" to be
a point.  Here, let me refresh your memory:

] From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$[e-mail]>
]
] In article <[e-mail]>, Joseph  <[e-mail]> 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.
]
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
]
]      - Mike

> Everything else in your argument false apart.

You're erroneously presupposing that Fact #5 contradicts the very
point that Joseph was trying to make, Mike.  In fact, Fact #1 is
is the point that Joseph was trying to make.  Interesting that you
didn't object to Fact #1.  Everything else in my argument does not
false [sic] apart.

>> Fact # 6:  Fact #5 allows you to eliminate "all" from the list of
>>            possible interpretations of Joseph's statement.
>> Fact # 7:  That leaves "some" as the only logical interpretation
>>            of Joseph's statement.
>> Fact # 8:  You admitted that 1.1.8 implements some of the Java 1.2
>>            functionality.
>> Fact # 9:  You are therefore in agreement with the only logical
>>            interpretation of Joseph's statement.
>> Fact #10:  Facts #3 and #9 contradict one another.  Both cannot
>>            be right.
>> Fact #11:  I claimed that you are wrong.
>> Fact #12:  Fact #10 proves my claim.

>>> I've comprehended that argument and I disagree.  If you claim that
>>> "Product X implements JDK 1.2 functionality", people expect that the
>>> functionality of JDK 1.2 is implemented.

>> See facts #4 and #5, Mike.

> Seee the point of Joseph's post.

The point of Joseph's post is that 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality,
Mike.  That's the only portion you reproduced.  The rest must have been
irrelevant, right Mike?

>>>>> Do you understand what the word "some" means?  A portion thereof.
>>>>> "Some of the functionality of JDK 1.2" is not equal to "the
functionality
>>>>> of JDK 1.2".

>>>> Irrelevant, Mike, given that the statement in question is "Java 1.2
>>>> functionality.  Quit twisting the words around.  In the real case,
>>>> "Java 1.2 functionality" and "some Java 1.2 functionality" are
>>>> logically equivalent, because it is illogical to give the product
>>>> the version number 1.1.8 if it implements "all" of the Java 1.2
>>>> functionality.  You have yet to counter that logic, Mike.

>>> On the contrary, I counter it by pointing you back to the point of
>>> the original post.

>> Still having reading comprehension problems, Mike?  I wasn't talking about
>> the point of your post.

> It's you who are having the reading comprehension problems, Dave;

Typical Timbol unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> I wasn't referring to the point of *MY* post, I was referring to the point
of
> *JOSEPH'S* post.

On the contrary, you merely referred to "the original post", Mike.  The
original post to which I responded is shown above, Mike.  Joseph's
point is that 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Your point is
that he is wrong.  I've addressed both points, Mike.

>>>>>>> You claimed JDK 1.1.8 includes Java 2 security classes.

>>>>>> That's because it does, Mike.

>>>>>   New to this release are security enhancements based on the Java 2
>>>>>   security model; ...

>>>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>>>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,

>>> As I stated, your newsgroup article is outdated, published before
>>> JDK 1.1.8 was released.  It is superceded by IBM's current description,
>>> which I have quoted.

>> Exactly where did that quotation come from, Mike?

> IBM's web site.

That's not very exact, Mike.

> I've said that before?

Aren't you sure, Mike?

> Are you stupid?

Obviously not.  Do you consider IBM's web site to be an exact response?

>>>>> Note that they do not refer to it as "the Java 2 version of Swing".

>>>> They refer to it as:
>>>>
>>>> ] functions from Sun's Java 2 technology

>>> No, they don't.  They claimed that the JDK implements selected functions
>>> from Sun's Java 2 technology.  Nowhere did they claim that Swing was one
>>> of those functions.

>> Note the use of the plural, Mike:  functions.

>  "We've chosen several people from the East Coast to work at our Firm.
>   Our firm includes Boston Bob, John, my cousin Fred, and Bill."
>
> Is Bill from the East Coast?  It doesn't say that.

Typical Timbol inappropriate example.  A more appropriate second
sentence would be "Our firm includes East Coasters Boston Bob, John,
my cousin Fred, and Bill."  You see, the second sentence of the real
case specifically mentions Java 2.  Your attempted analogy does not.

>>> You inferred that from the press release.

>> You should have said "the press release implied it", to be consistent
>> with your previous argument, Mike.

> On the contrary, the inference is your own -- it is not stated in the
> article.

I wasn't disagreeing with your usage, Mike.  I was noting the inconsistency
of your usage.

>>>>> It is not.

>>>> You claimed that it requires new features that aren't in 1.1.8, Mike.
>>>> Obviously there is something new to Swing in Java 2.

>>> There *is* something new to Swing in Java 2.  Those features are not
>>> implemented in Swing for IBM's JDK 1.1.8.

>> Prove it, Mike.

> See IBM's description of the Swing that they include.

Care to provide a reference, Mike?

>>>>> Note that they do not refer to them as "the Java 2 versions of
>>>>> RMIM-IIOP and the Java COMM API".

>>>> They refer to them as:
>>>>
>>>> ] functions from Sun's Java 2 technology

>>> No, they don't.  That's your incorrect interpretation.

>> Incorrect, Mike; that's a verbatim excerpt.

> Then why don't you do us all a favor and show me the verbatic excerpt
> that refers to RMI-IIOP and the Java COMM API in the same section as
> "Java 2"?

I already did that, Mike.  Having more reading comprehension problems?

> Simply because "Java 2" and "the Java COMM API" appear in the same
> newsgroup article does not mean "the Java COMM API is part of Java 2".

They were in more than just the same article, Mike.  They were in the
same sentence that listed the functions of Java 2 implemented in 1.1.8.

>>>>> They are not.

>>>> Prove it, Mike.

>>> I already have, Dave.

>>> Since Java 2 was released in 1998, RMI-IIOP was obviously not in it.

>> It is now, Mike, and IBM implemented that functionality in 1.1.8.

> Prove it, Dave.

Reread the quotation I provided, Mike.

> I've shown you my proof, which you've deleted.

How ironic, coming from Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol.  Hypocrite.

> Where's yours?

Reread the quotation I provided, Mike.

>>> Gee, since Sun explicitly states that it will not be part of the core
>>> JDK, it obviously isn't in Java 2, either.

>> Are you trying to say that nothing outside of the core can be considered
>> part of Java 2, Mike?

> Dave, it was *YOUR* argument that the only things that can be considered
> "Java 2 functionality" are things that were newly introduced in JDK 1.2.

Note the absence of any reference to the core in that statement, Mike.

> The Java COMM API does not qualify, as I've proven,

On the contrary, it's what you've alleged.

> though you have again deleted the evidence without comment.

How ironic, coming from Mike "Master of Deletion" Timbol.  Hypocrite.

>>>>> Fortunately, IBM's JDK 1.2 is scheduled to be available for OS/2 in
>>>>> "Early 2000", and it *will* implement JDK 1.2 functionality.  Of course,

>>>>> IBM's JDK 1.2 for Windows is scheduled to be released "Late 4Q 1999".

>>>> Irrelevant, Mike, given that we're not discussing that.

>>> We're discussing JDK 1.2 functionality.  I'm letting you know when it
>>> will be available from IBM.  I'm sure they'll do a good job.

>> Yet more diversion from the original issue.

> You're welcome not to discuss it, then.

You're welcome not to bring it up, Mike.

>>>>> "Premiere platform" indeed.

>>>> The fastest around.

>>> I see you are demonstrating your ignorance once again.  In most areas,
>>> IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for Windows is faster than their JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2, as
>>> shown by IBM's own tests.

>> How many is "most", Mike?

> All but one.

Evidence, please.

> "Premiere platform" indeed.

The fastest around.

>>>>> Interestingly, you base your "reality" on an incorrect and outdated

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             25-Oct-99 11:24:07
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 10:31:28
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

>>>>> press release, while refusing to address the current, updated
description.

>>>> You haven't pointed to any document, Mike.

>>> I've quoted a document.  It's on IBM's web site.

>> You said you didn't need to run the JDK to look at the contents, thereby
>> "implying" (to use your definition) that the document is a part of the
>> JDK, Mike.

> Not at all.  It's on IBM's web site.

You claimed that your information came from looking at the contents of
the JDK, which didn't require running anything, Mike.  In which JDK
file are these contents allegedly included?

>>> What's the matter, you couldn't find it?

>> What makes you ask that, Mike?

> The fact that you keep asking for a reference.

I gave you a reference, Mike.

> If you really can't find it, just let me know and I'll give you the URL.

You claimed that your information came from looking at the contents of
the JDK, which didn't require running anything, Mike.  That's not a URL.
In which JDK file are these contents allegedly included?

>>>>> Clinging to the past will get you nowhere.

>>>> Pontificating will get you nowhere.

>>> Quoting IBM is not "pontificating".

>> Alleged quotes. I provided a reference to my quotations of IBM.  You
>> have not.  Note the difference.

> I point you to IBM's web site.

You claimed that your information came from looking at the contents of
the JDK, which didn't require running anything, Mike.  In which JDK
file are these contents allegedly included?

> Originally, you claimed that that was a reference.

On the contrary, originally I referred you to a posting in
comp.os.os2.announce.

> Are you changing your mind now?

You're erroneously presupposing that I originally claimed that that was
a reference, Mike.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                  25-Oct-99 07:40:08
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 10:31:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something hypocritical calling itself a <[e-mail]> tholened:

> > Both are full of illogical reasoning from you.
>
> Yet another example of your pontification.

What a hypocrite!  You do exactly the same thing and that's *NOT*
pontificating?  Like I say, what a hypocrite you are, Tholen!


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

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

From: [e-mail]                            25-Oct-99 11:43:14
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 10:31:28
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

> > "Joseph" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> > > The MVP has been called an advocacy program.  Advocates do provide
help.
> > > According to the news, the MVP program participants earn some sort of
> > > credit and these credits will expire Dec 1st.  They seem to have some
> > > value in terms of acquiring MS products like free MSDN and access to
MS
> > > HTML experts.
> >
> > No Joseph that is no accurate. It has been called an advocacy program by
> > folks like yourself, people that do not know any better.
>
> MVP has been called an advocacy program by the computer industry press.
It
> walks, and quacks like an advocacy program.   Why deny the term advocacy?
> Advocates provide on-line support on the newsgroups.  They provide help at
> tradeshows.

By your definition above you are right, and I am wrong to not call the MVP
program an advocacy program. Your point about Tradeshows is not accurate
though. The only place that we were recoginized and monitored by Microsoft
was the public newsgroups. Anything that was done outside the public
newsgroups was pretty much our own doings. I run a BBS for support of
Windows NT. Microsoft thought it was nice but didn't give me any points as
an MVP.

> > The MVP was always
> > an online support program. If you are interested in knowing the real
facts,
> > you can read the brochure about the program. Microsoft has not taken it
> > down... yet... I expect it will be pulled once they realize they have
left
> > it up.
> >
> >
http://www.microsoft.com/supportnet/supportpartners/mvps/brochuregeneral.htm
>
> The facts are being covered in the press including the how mystified many
are at
> the termination of the program.  Some speculate that MS wants to enter
into the
> service market so they are killing the program.  Others think it is MS's
> relatively new President's attempt to gain more control.

Actually no, the facts have not be completely covered in the press. In fact
some of the facts have not been accurate. However the inaccuracy has been
minor.

Yes we are mystified, just as many at Microsoft are mystified. The
speculation about MS entering the service market makes sense and is
certainly one of the leading theories. There is no evidence to disprove this
theory. However a number of issues probably lead to this.

The sticking point for most of us is not that it happened, it is HOW it
happened.

Dale


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  25-Oct-99 07:52:20
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 10:31:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

> > Having trouble being sequitur, Marty?
>
> Not at all Dave.  You've, of course, removed all context from my
> statements by splitting them up individually, questioned them as if they
> had nothing to do with one another, and reinterpretted them literally in
> a way that suits you.  This allows you to plug your specific instance
> into my general statement, and call it "illogical".  It's getting old,
> Dave.

Yeah, about as old as Tholen has been posting on uselessnet, which is over 7
years, Marty.  He's known for his use of highly edited comments of others,
hence his election as Kook of the Month.  He's a limited intellect and
cannot be trusted at all.  Add to that that he's a hypocrite and you have
the perfect Kook!

- Joe


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

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

From: [e-mail]                          25-Oct-99 13:01:18
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 14:48:14
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>"Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>
>> > Having trouble being sequitur, Marty?
>>
>> Not at all Dave.  You've, of course, removed all context from my
>> statements by splitting them up individually, questioned them as if they
>> had nothing to do with one another, and reinterpretted them literally in
>> a way that suits you.  This allows you to plug your specific instance
>> into my general statement, and call it "illogical".  It's getting old,
>> Dave.
>
>Yeah, about as old as Tholen has been posting on uselessnet, which is over 7
>years, Marty.  He's known for his use of highly edited comments of others,
>hence his election as Kook of the Month.  He's a limited intellect and
>cannot be trusted at all.  Add to that that he's a hypocrite and you have
>the perfect Kook!

Joe, I also seriously believe that he is mentally ill. I very much
believe that if he were diagnosed by a competent psychiatrist, he
would be found to be so. His behavior on usenet is way beyond any
definition of "normalcy", and even beyond any sense of sanity.

Sure, after reading his foolishly contradictory, confused, witless
literal-to-the-point-of-dense tripe, which lacks even the common sense
of a kindergarten student, we know that he's a dimwitted moron.

But, I think that he has also demonstrated that he's a mentally ill
moron. I shudder to think what kind of childhood he had. It must have
been too much to get through, because he still hasn't grown out of it

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               25-Oct-99 16:08:07
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 16:44:03
Subj: User group survival

From: [e-mail] (Esther Schindler)

Uno, I'm not sure why you moved this discussion from comp.os.os2.misc
to c.o.o.advocacy. I've cross-posted this response to both groups, but
since the conversation was started in .misc I suggest that follow-ups
be posted only to that group.

On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 01:19:42, [e-mail] ([e-mail]) wrote:
| Esther Schindler? ([e-mail]?) wrote (24 Oct 1999 20:20:22 GMT):
| >few long diatribes about the requirement of a user group to charge
| >dues. The ones that don't charge dues fade away. The ones that charge
| >something, however modest, have a much better chance of making it.
|
| Or, those that can charge a fee are worth paying the fee to, and so
| it continues.  Those that aren't worth the fee aren't going to stay
| around anyway.

Uno, you miss my point. Whatever the relative value of the user groups
-- and the Bay Area OS/2 User Group was an _excellent_ one, by any
standard you can name -- the statistics demonstrate that
NoDuesCollection==extinction. My theory, that it's related to the
member's (literal) buy-in, is only a theory. But the statistics speak
for themselves.

Sure, most bad user groups fail, just as most bad software companies
fail and most bad restaurants fail. But a good user group will fail
within 3 years, if it doesn't charge dues -- even though the apparency
is that "no cost" is a benefit.

With money coming in, the user group leadership has resources for
doing something to serve the membership. Those services aren't 100%
successful (what is?) but they enhance the ability of the user group
membership to use their computers more efficiently and more enjoyably,
and to help other people -- which is the whole point of the exercise.

|But, still, OS/2 users are hard enough to find, and
| if you can't keep all of them the outfit is in trouble (it's not like
| there are more where they came from).

The "hard enough to find" is the real trouble. Just as any computer
industry magazine attracts only a tiny percentage of the computer
users out there, any user group (OS/2 or otherwise) has to find and
attract a significant percentage of the community... the qualified
target market, if you will. Unless an OS/2 user happens to check
WarpCast or read the newsgroups or participate in a _very_ closed set
of activities, she can miss the existance of a user group entirely.
(And this is quite common. I spent 3 months as OS/2 Network
Administrator at a large company that was running several OS/2
servers, and they didn't read _anything_ except PC Week or
Infoworld... and usually were too busy to look at that.)

(The biggest problem for OS/2 ISVs isn't the shrinking market size,
but _FINDING_ the market in the first place. You can't advertise on a
TV show if you don't know what shows the qualified buyers are
watching, for instance.)

Also, keep the context in mind. Most user groups, across the board,
are shrinking rapidly. I'm still on the mail lists for user group
officers. Most general/Windows groups report that their membership has
slipped from, say, 500 to 225 members, in the last couple of years.
Between the Internet and the ubiquity of information about PCs, it's
no longer quite as necessary for the "general" computer user to leave
the house on a dark and stormy night to find out about the latest and
greatest application. (I have several other criticisms about general
PC user group management, and theories about their shrinkage, but
they're way off topic.)

In contrast, the Phoenix OS/2 Society's membership is growing, every
month. Not necessarily by a lot, every time, but we're growing while
others are shrinking. That's almost entirely because we've put the
dues money into the user group's print magazine -- extended attributes
is our major service to the membership. It's won awards three times
over, so _somebody_ agrees that we're doing something right.

| [POSSI has] members in 19 countries and nearly every U.S.
| >state. (Know any OS/2 users in South Dakota?)
|
| How about breaking it all down, as in numbers per country/state?  It's
| easy to say "my [product] is in five (or six) continents", but that's
| just so much hooey, and only brought up because there's nothing else
| to bring up.

It's already been done, Uno. About 6 months ago, we published a map in
extended attributes, showing where the members live. Had you been a
member, or an advertiser, you'd have seen the chart.

--Esther Schindler
  Program Chair
  Phoenix OS/2 Society
  http://www.possi.org

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

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

From: [e-mail]                25-Oct-99 12:08:28
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 16:44:03
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (tholenbot)

In article <7v1ph3$1gb$[e-mail]>, Dave "Bennett" Tholen
([e-mail]) 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.
>
> >>>>>> I see you failed to comprehend my evidence.
>
> >>>>> Seeing things that aren't there again, David?  Your evidence did not
> >>>>> support your claim.
>
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>
> >>> Aren't you certain?
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Using a pseudonym, Dave?  How ironic.
>
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

Why do you say that?

> >>>>>> Still having reading
> >>>>>> comprehension problems, Eric?
>
> >>>>> Illogical.
>
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
>
> >>> What makes you believe that I believe that?
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Eliza?  Hah!  I would appreciate it if you would continue.
>
> What makes you believe that?

Can you elaborate on that?

> >>>>>>>> Gerben Bergman did a little investigating
> >>>>>>>> and confirmed that Wayne Strang won.  See
> >>>>>>>> Message-ID: <[e-mail]
>
> >>>>>>> Reading comprehension problems again, Dave?
>
> >>>>>> Obviously not.
>
> >>>>> See what I mean?
>
> >>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>
> >>> Non sequitur.
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
> > try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
> > you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!
>
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

Are you sure that is the real reason?

> >>>>>>> Gerben's post shows that you were the winner:
>
> >>>>>> Gerben's post shows that Wayne Strang is the winner.
>
> >>>>> Incorrect.
>
> >>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>
> >>> Non sequitur.
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
> > try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
> > you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!
>
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

Are you positive that is the real reason?

> >>>>>> See the message
> >>>>>> referenced above.
>
> >>>>> Typical circular reasoning.  Ineffective.
>
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
>
> >>> What makes you believe that I believe that?
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
> > try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
> > you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!
>
> What makes you believe that?

I would appreciate it if you would continue.

> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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,
>
> >>>>> Incorrect.
>
> >>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>
> >>> Non sequitur.
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
> > try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
> > you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!
>
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

Are you certain that this is the real reason?

> >>>>>> given that I explained why there is nothing illogical about
> >>>>>> it,
>
> >>>>> Your explanation was illogical.
>
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
>
> >>> What makes you believe that I believe that?
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
> > try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
> > you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!
>
> What makes you believe that?

What makes you believe what makes I believe this?

> >>>>>> while you only make the claim with offering any explanation.
>
> >>>>> I have already explained it.  Your failure to comprehend the
explanation
> >>>>> is predictable, David.
>
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>
> >>> Aren't you certain?
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
> > try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
> > you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!
>
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

Maybe my life that I am going through all this have something to do with this.

> >>>>>>>>> given that the burden of proof is yours.
>
> >>>>>>>> It's already been proven.
>
> >>>>>>> Evidence, please.
>
> >>>>>> See the referenced message above.
>
> >>>>> Typical circular reasoning.  Ineffective.
>
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
>
> >>> What makes you believe that I believe that?
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
> > try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
> > you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!
>
> What makes you believe that?

Go on, don't be afraid.

> >>>>>>>> The burden to read the proof is yours, Eric.
>
> >>>>>>> Argument by assertion again, Dave?
>
> >>>>>> Where is the alleged assertion, Eric?
>
> >>>>> How ironic.
>
> >>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>
> >>> Non sequitur.
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
> > try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
> > you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!
>
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

Are you absolutely sure that is the real reason?

> >>>>>>> How predictable.
>
> >>>>>> How illogical to refer to a nonexistent assertion.
>
> >>>>> You erroneously presuppose a that I made a reference to a nonexisting
> >>>>> assertion.
>
> >>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>
> >>> Non sequitur.
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
> > try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
> > you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!
>
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

Are you sure that is the real reason?

> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>>> Illogical.
>
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
>
> >>> What makes you believe that I believe that?
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
> > try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
> > you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!
>
> What makes you believe that?

I need a little more detail please.

> >>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>>> Irrelevant.
>
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
>
> >>> What makes you believe that I believe that?
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
> > try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
> > you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!
>
> What makes you believe that?

You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.

> >>>>>>>>> I do not "approve" phrases.
> >>>>>>>>> -Dave Tholen
>
> >>>>>>>> I'm puzzled by your fascination with that statement, Eric.
>
> >>>>>>> What puzzles you is irrelevant.
>
> >>>>>> Incorrect.
>
> >>>>> Evidence, please.
>
> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>
> >>> I see you weren't able to provide any evidence to support your erroneous
> >>> claim.  Predictable.
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
> > try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
> > you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!
>
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?

> >>>>>>> What you can prove is relevant.
>
> >>>>>> Non sequitur.
>
> >>>>> Evidence, please.
>
> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>
> >>> I see you weren't able to provide any evidence to support your erroneous
> >>> claim.  Predictable.
>
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
>
> > Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
> > try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
> > you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!
>
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?

> >>>>>>>> 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?
>
> >>>>> [Ed: Seems reasonable enough.]
>
> >>>> Why not select some other quotations of yours?
>
> >>> Why not select that one?
>
> >> It doesn't stand out.
>
> > Why do you say it doesn't stand out?
>
> You don't approve phrases either.

Is it because of my sex life that I am going through all this that you say
I do not approve phrases either?

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                        25-Oct-99 12:14:08
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 16:44:03
Subj: Re: IBM Licenses SciTech Graphics Technology!

From: [e-mail] (Kim A. Sommer)

In article <[e-mail]>,
Kendall Bennett <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail] says...
>
>> > [e-mail] (Kendall Bennett) wrote:
>>
>> > Actually we have a news group on our server that you can access at:
>> >
>> >  new://news.scitechsoft.com/scitech.display.doctor.os2.beta
>> >

>> Noblesse oblige, I learned. If you want to become part of the
>> OS/2 community you should be here. You are no longer just a
>> supplier of an alternative technology you have because of this
>> agreement become (partly) part of the OS/2 world. By the way I

I know you responded to the previous poster but..."Noblesse oblige"? What
a crock! Sci-tech does not have to be in this newsgroup. They've provided
there own service that is focused on their product.  They owe us nothing
a far as newgroup presence in cooa.  And Netscape hooks up to their
newsgroup fine. (umm that is if you correct the URL they gave.  It
should be   news://news.scitechsoft.com/scitech.display.doctor.os2.beta

>You have completely lost me on this one. You message seems to indicate
[snip]
>
>Did I miss something here?

You missed nothing. Thanks providing a high S/N ratio forum for discussing
the beta.



regards,
Kim
--
-------
Kim A. Sommer
Humans do it Better!  The Open Directory Project - http://dmoz.org

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               25-Oct-99 17:55:09
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 16:44:03
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>

In article <7ur1b5$7va$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:

> Yes.  You believe yourself to be a normal, well adjusted, relaxed
individual.
> Despite that, you engaged in an action that you associated with
someone who
> you claimed is not normal, well adjusted, or relaxed.

Normal, well adjusted, relaxed individuals wash their hands.
Abnormal, not well adjusted, not relaxed individuals wash their hands
20 times in a morning.

The same act can be performed in different ways by different people.
What's normal in a normal people looks kooky on you.

He quoted you. You quoted me 20 times in a post. See the pattern?

--
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]                               25-Oct-99 14:21:26
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 16:44:04
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> In article <7uuf4s$nks$[e-mail]>,
>   [e-mail] wrote:
> > Roberto Alsina writes:
> >
> > >>> Marty wrote:
> >
> > >>>> I wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
> > >>>>>    --Roberto Alsina
> >
> > >>>> Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed
> individual
> > >>>> would do?
> >
> > >>> Well, everyone (except Dave) knows the answer to that question,
> > >>> right?
> >
> > >> How would you know what everyone thinks, Roberto?
> >
> > > I am not sure.
> >
> > What makes you believe that?
> >
> > > That's why there is a question mark in that sentence.
> >
> > Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >
> > >>> It took some years, but Dave finally lost his few remaining
> marbles.
> >
> > >> Typical invective, and rather ironic, coming from someone who
> didn't
> > >> have enough marbles to compute an average posting rate properly.
> >
> > > Hey, you are back to "normal", liar Dave.
> >
> > How ironic, coming from the person who accused me of posting an
> average
> > of 134 articles a day, and insisted that he was correct, long after it
> > had been proven that he was wrong.
>
> Poor pathetic lying kook Dave. He can't even keep that Eliza tone
> through the entire post.

Is he playing an infantile game with you Roberto?  It figures.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               25-Oct-99 17:49:25
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 16:44:04
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>

In article <7uuf4s$nks$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina writes:
>
> >>> Marty wrote:
>
> >>>> I wrote:
>
> >>>>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
> >>>>>    --Roberto Alsina
>
> >>>> Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed
individual
> >>>> would do?
>
> >>> Well, everyone (except Dave) knows the answer to that question,
> >>> right?
>
> >> How would you know what everyone thinks, Roberto?
>
> > I am not sure.
>
> What makes you believe that?
>
> > That's why there is a question mark in that sentence.
>
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>
> >>> It took some years, but Dave finally lost his few remaining
marbles.
>
> >> Typical invective, and rather ironic, coming from someone who
didn't
> >> have enough marbles to compute an average posting rate properly.
>
> > Hey, you are back to "normal", liar Dave.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who accused me of posting an
average
> of 134 articles a day, and insisted that he was correct, long after it
> had been proven that he was wrong.

Poor pathetic lying kook Dave. He can't even keep that Eliza tone
through the entire post.

> > Seems the medication kicked in.
>
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

--
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]                               25-Oct-99 18:10:21
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 16:44:04
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>

In article <7uugds$nks$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina writes:
>
> >>> Since all the latest quoted material below is either Eliza
responses
> >>> pasted by Dave Tholen, or Dave Tholen doing his best to sound like
> >>> Eliza (he did once try to do that and failed miserably,
>
> >> Incorrect, Roberto; I never tried to sound like Eliza.
>
> > Nonsense.
> > You are denying the obvious.
> > so that is to be expected.
> >>> so I suppose he used the real thing this time),
>
> >> I extracted responses from a posting that you claimed contained
> >> Eliza responses both times, Roberto.  You fell for it the first
> >> time, hook, line, and sinker.
>
> > Prove it if you think you can.
>
> See the end of this article, Roberto.  Now you have the evidence to
> nominate yourself.

Evidence is not enough, and your evidence is basically flawed.
It's not enough that a sentence formed by eliza was used. It would
have to be the sentence Eliza would form as a response in that context,
and it has to be a whole post consisting of nothing but that. You are
still far beyond me in the field of Eliza chats.

> > Your post contained a specific sentence that Eliza could have
> > never formed,
>
> My post contained many specific sentences that Eliza did form,
> according to both you and Donal Fellows.

But not in the context on which Eliza would form it. That's very
important.

> > and I specified what your mistake was.
>
> I made no mistake, Roberto.  The mistakes are all yours.

Well, you also claim that you "will say whatever it takes to further
your point" and that "everyone that wants to make a coherent argument"
should care about what you think, so it's not like your word is worth
anything.

> >>> I will not reply to it.
>
> >> What do you consider the posting of yours to which I'm responding,
> >> Roberto?
>
> > "it" being the ersatz Eliza, that post was not a response to it.
>
> Incorrect, Roberto.

Prove it, if you think you can, liar kook.

> >>> That would be the act of a kook.
> >>> However, I will use this post for a more useful purpose.
> >>>
> >>> Anyone who argues with Tholen in the future can now use the
> >>> following fact: Dave has been proven a liar.
>
> >> Where is this alleged proof, Roberto?
>
> > Your claim to having read the entire post you reply to (and
> > remembering it) , and your failure to notice the answer to a
question
> > *after* it was posted, yet admitting it was the answer.
>
> Where did that allegedly happen, Roberto?

In this very thread. What, your memory is failing you?

> > Charge against which you did not present any defense at the time,
> > instead relying on non sequitur quotations.
>
> Where did that allegedly happen, Roberto?

See above.

> >>> He has also said that what a liar says can be dismissed because
> >>> his credibility is diminished.
>
> >> Which means that you can be dismissed, given that you lied about
the
> >> average number of postings I made each day.
>
> > Wrong != Lie
>
> I see you still haven't bothered to consult Webster's New Collegiate
> Dictionary, which proves that you're wrong.  Just like last time,
> you continue to insist that you're right, even though the proof that
> you are wrong has been identified.

I already replied to that, and you simply gave a non sequitur quote
as an answer, I'd say you either granted my point, or simply you
don't care about the truth.

> >>> So, just call him a liar,
>
> >> But you're a liar, Roberto, which means that your claim can be
> >> dismissed.
>
> > Evidence is in this thread, recent and fresh for everyone to
> > notice your lie.
>
> What alleged lie, Roberto?

The one mentioned above. You forgot already?

> > No need to rely on my claim.
>
> There is a need to rely on your evidence, but you haven't provided
> any.

No need to. Everyope reading this thread remembers it.

> >>> and whenever he tries to argue about it, dismiss him because of
> >>> his diminished credibility.
> >>> So, now, USENET should be a better place.
>
> >> Are you planning to leave, Roberto?
>
> > Not soon, Pinocchio.
>
> Having more reading comprehension problems, Roberto?  You're not
> respnding to Pinocchio.

It was meant as an insult. Looks like you didn't comprehend it.
Also, there is no such a word as "respnding" as you told Marty.

> > By the way, do you authorize me to post your responses to machine
> > generated emails?
>
> The email you sent me initially was not machine generated, Roberto.

Non sequitur. I asked about your answers to the emails that were. The
email you sent me initially was not machine generated either.

[snip alleged exchanges with Eliza]

You are silly. Every phrase containing the word "what" was not partly
composed by Eliza. Every instance of "What makes you think that?" was
not composed by Eliza.

There is, however, a simple and obvious pattern in your KOTM nomination
message, showing that you answered to the Eliza responses to your
previous message.

That pattern is missing in these alleged exchanges with Eliza.

> Have you enjoyed your chat with Eliza, Roberto?

What chat? If you claim I chated with Eliza, so did you. But you claim
you did not. You are being illogical. You claim not to be illogical.
You are a hypocrite.

--
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]                                  25-Oct-99 16:40:24
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 19:06:15
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Sheesh! Stupid <[e-mail]> obviously used something akin to
an Eliza program and tholened:

> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> What makes you believe that?
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> What makes you believe that?
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> What makes you believe that?
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> What makes you believe that?
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> What makes you believe that?
> What makes you believe that?
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

But Tholen, you forgot the most basic question of all: Why do you respond
like Eliza?


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

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

From: [e-mail]                            25-Oct-99 20:21:17
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 19:06:15
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

You are replying to my comment. I entered this thread at a specific point to
address a specific issue. I have no interest in taking you up on any offer
you might have. I have no interest in debating or arguing with you which OS
is better. I use Windows because it fits my needs the best. 10 years ago I
was using OS/2. I made a personal decision in 1992 to go with Windows NT
over OS/2. I've not regretted that move to date.

If you don't want to run Windows that is OK with me. It doesn't impact me
one way or the other which OS you choose run.

Dale


"Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:29:55 GMT, Dale Ross wrote:
>
> >No Joseph that is no accurate. It has been called an advocacy program by
> >folks like yourself, people that do not know any better. The MVP was
always
> >an online support program. If you are interested in knowing the real
facts,
> >you can read the brochure about the program. Microsoft has not taken it
> >down... yet... I expect it will be pulled once they realize they have
left
> >it up.
>
> I think the comment was meant to be a bait.   Since there is NO response
from
> ANYBODY to my offer, I assume the comment regarding MVP was intended to
see
> if may be nobody was reading the post.
>
> Now, let's not side step the issue at hand: All of you Windows supporters
has
> been telling us how good Windows are and how secure and non-breakable any
of
> the Windows OS are, why not show me?   My offer should be a no-brainer for
> you guys to make a fortune off me.
>
> I sincerely do not want to make myself look like a fool when I show this
to
> the military.   We have an oppurtunity to do a demo at a military base and
I
> fully intend to do the demo as I had indicated.   Obviously I want a
> non-biased party to handle the Windows side.
>
> So, if Windows is so great like you guys have been telling us, why not
take
> my offer?
>
> McCoy? Black? Todd?   Steven?  (I think he's gone)  Anybody?
>
>


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

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

From: [e-mail]                            25-Oct-99 21:26:27
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 19:06:15
Subj: A follow up...

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

> Some speculate that MS wants to enter into the
> service market so they are killing the program.  Others think it is MS's
> relatively new President's attempt to gain more control.

I'll give you the "honor" of hearing it first hear. The MVP was reinstated
this afternoon...

Microsoft was flooded with email from the users that we support.

Dale


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 25-Oct-99 20:45:23
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 19:06:15
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7v18lt$ev7$[e-mail]>,
 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>> Read the rest of the article, Mike.
>
>>>> I did, Dave.
>
>>> You said you couldn't find it, Mike.  Do make up your mind.
>
>> Dave, try and understand the concept that things change with time.
>
>What took so long, Mike?

It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
that you were referencing.  Since that was the first time you provided
anything that could be searched on, that was the first time I was able
to find the article you were referring to.

>>>>> Some lines up you claimed that Swing for 1.1.8 has identical
>>>>> functionality to Swing for 1.2,
>
>>>> Bullshit.  I never claimed that at all.
>
>>> Liar:
>>>
>>> MT] They provide the same functionality and they implement the same API.
>
>> The quote refers to OS/2's Swing vs. other implementations of Swing
>> for JDK 1.1.8.
>
>Such an interpretation is non sequitur, Mike, given that the preceding
>discussion involved Swing for 1.2.

That, of course, is yet another lie on your part:

 MT] >> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.  The
 MT] >> Swing classes are not included.  You can download them separately,
 MT] >> just as you can download them separately for the reference 1.1.x JDKs.
   ] >
 DT] >Are they identical, Mike?
   ]
 MT] They provide the same functionality and they implement the same API.

My comment obviously refers to the Swing classes for IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8 and
the Swing classes for the reference 1.1.x JDKs.

>> Understand context, Dave.
>
>That's exactly what I did, Mike.

Then you understood it incorrectly, as usual.

>> I did not say that OS/2's Swing provided the same functionality as the
>> Swing in JDK 1.2.  That's, once again, your misinterpretation.
>
>Incorrect, Mike.  That is, once again, the result of the application
>of logic to a discussion.

Which demonstrates, once again, the immense failings of your "logic".

>>>> You cannot use the message-ID of an article to find it with deja.com,
>>>> Dave.
>
>>> You don't need the message ID, Mike.  I certainly didn't.
>
>> All you had provided was the message-ID.  Go look at your original
>> references to it.  No quotation from the article at all.  Thus, I could
>> not find the article, since you cannot use the message-ID to find it.
>
>Irrelevant, Mike.  You claimed that you couldn't find the article
>even after I had provided a quotation from it.

Incorrect again.  On 10-19-99, you posted the article's message-ID.
On 10-20-99, I told you I could not use that to search for the article.
On 10-21-99, you first provided a quotation from the article in
question.  Using that, I could find the article.

     - Mike

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               25-Oct-99 17:17:24
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 19:06:15
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Joe Malloy wrote:
>
> Sheesh! Stupid <[e-mail]> obviously used something akin to
> an Eliza program and tholened:
>
> > Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> > What makes you believe that?
> > Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> > Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> > What makes you believe that?
> > Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> > What makes you believe that?
> > Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> > What makes you believe that?
> > Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> > Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> > What makes you believe that?
> > What makes you believe that?
> > Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> > Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>
> But Tholen, you forgot the most basic question of all: Why do you respond
> like Eliza?

Because he is engaging in an infantile game.  How hypocritical.

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               25-Oct-99 17:22:17
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 21:17:18
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > Have you enjoyed your chat with Eliza, Roberto?
>
> What chat? If you claim I chated with Eliza, so did you. But you claim
> you did not. You are being illogical. You claim not to be illogical.
> You are a hypocrite.

That's the patented Tholen double standard.  If you do to him the same
thing that he does to you, you are pronounced illogical, infantile, or a
myriad of other names.  When he does it to you, he is proving points,
being logical, and focusing right in on key issues.

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             25-Oct-99 22:19:09
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 21:17:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7v16e5$ev7$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
> >> Incorrect.  Note your failure to identify the allegedly analogous
> >> word Lucien.
>
> > The entire sentence structure is the issue, not a single word.
>
> Then why did you indicate that there is an analogous word, Lucien?

I merely said there was an analogy.

> > More proof that you are lost.
>
> Illogical, given that you're erroneously presupposing that your claim
> about the issue is correct.

You are still lost, all the same.

> >>>>  You can't have known about the present situation years ago,
>
> >>> Irrelevant,
>
> >> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given your claim that the
older
>
> > No, it is irrelevant.
>
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant,

No, it is irrelevant.

>given your claim that the older
> thread identifies the allegedly analogous word in the present
> situation.

The older thread contains an analysis and proof of a sentence structure
congruent with the JDK sentence structure. You need to review it.

> >> thread identifies the allegedly analogous word in the present
> >> situation.
>
> > The older thread provides an analysis and proof based on phrase
> > structure;
>
> Impossible,

On the contrary, it is quite possible.

> given that your analysis ignored the definition of the
> word "prevent", therefore there is no proof from you.

Wrong. Review the "costly mistakes" thread to see why.

> > a word in isolation does not account for the data in either
> > the JDK sentence case or the "costly mistakes" case.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I never claimed that a word in isolation
> does account for the data in either case.  I did claim that the
> definition of "prevent" does not allow for some costly mistakes,

Your claim is wrong. See the "costly mistakes" thread for the proof.

> given that if a costly mistake occurs, then they weren't prevented.

Still wrong. See the "costly mistakes" thread for the explanation.

> Meanwhile, you still refuse to acknowledge that definition of the
> word.

Irrelevant, given that your analysis is wrong, just as it was at the
time of the "costly mistakes" thread.

> > Your insistence to the contrary is merely more proof that you do not
> > understand the issue.
>
> Your failure to acknowledge the definition of "prevent" is merely more
> proof that you do not understand the issue.

Irrelevant. The issue is the entire sentence structure. Review
the "costly mistakes" thread.

> >>> given that the analysis and proof of the data does not depend on
any
> >>> chronology.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that I asked you to identify the allegedly
analogous
> >> word, which has nothing to do with some analysis and alleged proof.
>
> > Wrong. See above.
>
> The above doesn't contain any proof that I'm wrong, Lucien.  It does
> contain proof that you are wrong.

On the contrary, the "costly mistakes" thread proves the illogic of
your argument.

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]                             25-Oct-99 17:31:22
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 21:17:18
Subj: OS/2 on large volumes

From: [e-mail]

I've seen references in messages here about using large volumes with
OS/2.  The MIS guys at my company say that they can't install OS/2 on
our newest machines because OS/2 can be run on them.  Are they just
giving us a line of BS?  I believed them because I was unable to install
OS/2 at home on a machine that had an 8Gb drive with Win98
pre-installed.

Is there a source of information on this?

Thanks.



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

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

From: [e-mail]                               25-Oct-99 21:17:07
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 21:17:18
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
  Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >
> > In article <7uuf4s$nks$[e-mail]>,
> >   [e-mail] wrote:

[ Dave wrote garbage, as usual ]

> > Poor pathetic lying kook Dave. He can't even keep that Eliza tone
> > through the entire post.
>
> Is he playing an infantile game with you Roberto?  It figures.

And he is a really bad player, too.

--
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]                               25-Oct-99 18:50:27
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 21:17:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 on large volumes

From: Carl Kaufmann <[e-mail]>

It's a line of BS.  Give them this URL:

http://service.software.ibm.com/os2ddpak/html/647679D565C73E0F862565980068EFB0.
html

It has updated IDE drivers for large drives that can be copied to the
installation disks.

Note that you still have to be careful about your boot partition, but
all OS's have to deal with that.

Carl Kaufmann

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> I've seen references in messages here about using large volumes with
> OS/2.  The MIS guys at my company say that they can't install OS/2 on
> our newest machines because OS/2 can be run on them.  Are they just
> giving us a line of BS?  I believed them because I was unable to install
> OS/2 at home on a machine that had an 8Gb drive with Win98
> pre-installed.
>
> Is there a source of information on this?
>
> Thanks.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: The Soulless Minions of Orthodoxy (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                 25-Oct-99 21:55:01
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 21:17:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7v1eku$ev7$[e-mail]>,
 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:
>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>>>>> Simply because there is a difference between imference and
implication
>>>>>>>> does not mean I don't understand the difference.  In this case,
Joseph
>>>>>>>> was clearly implying that the OS/2 JDK 1.1.8 is somehow superior,
>>>>>>>> due to JDK 1.2 functionality, than other implementations of JDK
1.1.8.
>>>>>>>> He *did* imply it...
>
>>>>>>> Incorrect, Mike.  You *did* infer it.
>
>>>>>> Because it was implied, Dave.
>
>>>>> Balderdash, Mike.  How did you manage to get inside Joseph's head to
>>>>> know what he intended?
>
>>>> "Implied" does not mean "intended".  Go look up the word.
>
>>> Irrelevant, Mike.  I didn't claim that "implied" means "intended".
>
>> Your question above demonstrates your misunderstanding of the word.
>
>It does no such thing, Mike.

Yes, it does.  Your paragraph below demonstrates your misunderstanding
yet again.

>All you have to go on is what Joseph
>actually wrote.  He cannot imply something that he actually wrote,
>because implication is indirect.  Thus he can imply only that which
>he did not write.  Now, if he did not write it, then how can you know
>what he did not write without getting inside his head?

Your paragraph above is incorrect: I can also know what logically follows
from what he actually wrote.  If he wrote "A Mustang is faster than a VW
Beetle and a Porsche 911 is faster than a Mustang", he's implying that a
Porsche 911 is faster than a VW beetle.  If he wrote "My car is the
same color as a ripe strawberry", he's implying that his car is some
sort of red color.

Did he actually *write* "a Porsche 911 is faster than a VW beetle"?  No.
Did he actually *write* "my car is the same color red as a strawberry?"  No.
Do I need to get "inside his head" to know that he's implying those
things? No.

Again, Dave, go look up the word.

>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>>>>> Not so.  I explained why, in context, the claim is incorrect.
>
>>>>>>> Incorrect, Mike.
>
>>>>>> Quite correct.  Why didn't you address that section?  Because you
>>>>>> couldn't.  So you deleted it,
>
>>>>> I never deleted that section, Mike
>
>>>> Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
>>>> so short -- you deleted most of my post.
>
>>> That's not the section in question, Mike.
>
>> Of course it is, Dave; I'm the one who brought up the section.  Follow
>> along.
>
>I suggest you follow along, Mike.  Below I've reproduced the *entirety*
>of your post to Joseph.

That's not the post I'm referring to, Dave.  I'm referring to the post
that's indicated above, where it says:

    Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:

>I did not delete most of your post.  In fact,
>I responded to everything in your post.

Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above because there
would be no other way for readers to know who I was responding to -- you
deleted everything I was responding to, as well as most of my response.

>Now, I fully expect you to delete this particular evidence for your
>dishonesty, or else not follow-up at all.  Otherwise, you would have
>to either lie again, or admit that you lied.  Of course, if you lie
>again, you'll look even more like the fool you are, because the
>evidence is particularly damning.

Do you still beat your wife, Dave?

>>>>>> and repeated your original argument yet again.
>
>>>>> You haven't comprehended the original argument yet.  Or maybe you did,
>>>>> realized you lost, and decided to divert attention away from it.
>
>>>> Your original argument is that "implements JDK 1.2 functionality" implies
>>>> "some".
>
>>> Incorrect, Mike.  Note how you've omitted the crucial reference to 1.1.8.
>>> Here's my real original argument:
>
>> Precursor to your "Fact #1:"
>>
>> Joseph claimed that versions numbers could not be used to judge
>> functionality.
>
>There's no such claim in the posting of yours to which I responded, Mike:

Since I'm referring to something that Joseph claimed, it makes sense to
look for it in Joseph's post, no?  From Joseph's post:

   "How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.
    That's a metric that is not justifiable, not even close to
    understanding what is going on.  No wonder you bitch and moan.
    'My software version is higher than yours -- let's play software
    pokeman.'"

>But even if he did make such a claim, it does nothing to change my
>argument.

That's because your argument ignores the claim entirely.

>>> Fact # 5:  It is illogical to use the older version number if your
>>>            product supports all of the functionality of the newer
>>>            version number.
>
>> Fact #5 is incorrect, because it contradicts the very point that Joseph
>> was trying to make.
>
>Incorrect.  The very point that Joseph was trying to make is that 1.1.8
>implements Java 1.2 functionality, Mike.

See the quote above.

>> Everything else in your argument false apart.
>
>You're erroneously presupposing that Fact #5 contradicts the very
>point that Joseph was trying to make, Mike.

Not so.  You are apparently not even aware of the point he was trying
to make.

>>>> On the contrary, I counter it by pointing you back to the point of
>>>> the original post.
>
>>> Still having reading comprehension problems, Mike?  I wasn't talking about
>>> the point of your post.
>
>> It's you who are having the reading comprehension problems, Dave; I
>> wasn't referring to the point of *MY* post, I was referring to the
>> point of *JOSEPH'S* post.
>
>On the contrary, you merely referred to "the original post", Mike.  The
>original post to which I responded is shown above, Mike.

I don't care what post *you* responded to, I'm talking about the original
post that I responded to.  Your penchant for misinterpretation strikes once
again.

>>>>>> Note that they do not refer to them as "the Java 2 versions of
>>>>>> RMIM-IIOP and the Java COMM API".
>
>>>>> They refer to them as:
>>>>>
>>>>> ] functions from Sun's Java 2 technology
>
>>>> No, they don't.  That's your incorrect interpretation.
>
>>> Incorrect, Mike; that's a verbatim excerpt.
>
>> Then why don't you do us all a favor and show me the verbatic excerpt
>> that refers to RMI-IIOP and the Java COMM API in the same section as
>> "Java 2"?
>
>> Simply because "Java 2" and "the Java COMM API" appear in the same
>> newsgroup article does not mean "the Java COMM API is part of Java 2".
>
>They were in more than just the same article, Mike.  They were in the
>same sentence that listed the functions of Java 2 implemented in 1.1.8.

And in that sentence, "Java 2" referred to "security classes"; thus the
phrase "Java 2 security classes".  It is your interpretation that "Java 2"
also refers to the other listed features; that interpretation is incorrect.

Again, from the current description...

   IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8
   incorporates the latest IBM JIT 3.5 compiler technology with MMI
   function. New to this release are security enhancements based on the
   Java 2 security model; Swing, Supported by IBM; RMI-IIOP, Supported
   by IBM; and the Java COMM API for OS/2 providing serial and parallel
   device support and enabling JavaPOS and JavaXFS.
   Updated 07/30/99

Here it is clear that "Java 2" refers only to the security model, not
the other features.  If you want to blame IBM for your misinterpretation,
feel free.  The fact remains that the other features are not "Java 2"
functionality.

>>>>>> "Premiere platform" indeed.
>
>>>>> The fastest around.
t
>
>>>> I see you are demonstrating your ignorance once again.  In most areas,
>>>> IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for Windows is faster than their JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2, as
>>>> shown by IBM's own tests.
>
>>> How many is "most", Mike?
>
>> All but one.
>
>Evidence, please.

http://www-4.ibm.com/software/developer/library/118/118.html

>> "Premiere platform" indeed.
>
>The fastest around.

On what grounds do you call the OS/2 JDK "the fastest around"?

>>>> I've quoted a document.  It's on IBM's web site.
>
>>> You said you didn't need to run the JDK to look at the contents, thereby
>>> "implying" (to use your definition) that the document is a part of the
>>> JDK, Mike.
>
>> Not at all.  It's on IBM's web site.
>
>You claimed that your information came from looking at the contents of
>the JDK, which didn't require running anything, Mike.

I did not claim that all my information came from there, Dave.  I also
pointed you to information from Sun's web site and IBM's web site.

>>>> What's the matter, you couldn't find it?
>
>>> What makes you ask that, Mike?
>
>> The fact that you keep asking for a reference.  If you really can't
>> find it, just let me know and I'll give you the URL.
>
>You claimed that your information came from looking at the contents of
>the JDK, which didn't require running anything, Mike.  That's not a URL.

Again, the quotation does not come from the JDK; as I stated earlier,
it comes from IBM's web site.  If you can't find it, I'll give you a URL.

     - Mike

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

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

From: [e-mail]                25-Oct-99 19:05:28
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 21:17:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 on large volumes

From: "Mike Ruskai" <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:31:44 -0500, [e-mail] wrote:

>I've seen references in messages here about using large volumes with
>OS/2.  The MIS guys at my company say that they can't install OS/2 on
>our newest machines because OS/2 can be run on them.  Are they just
>giving us a line of BS?  I believed them because I was unable to install
>OS/2 at home on a machine that had an 8Gb drive with Win98
>pre-installed.
>
>Is there a source of information on this?

They may believe what they're saying, and merely be incompetent.
Otherwise, they're lying.

OS/2 has had drivers available to work with >4GB drives for quite some
time now.

They can be retrieved from this URL, which is one line:

ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/ps/products/os2/os2ddpak/idedasd.exe

Inside the archive are instructions on modifying the installation
diskettes to allow installing OS/2 on large drives.



 - Mike

Remove 'spambegone' to send e-mail.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               25-Oct-99 18:39:23
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 21:17:18
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>> Marty writes [to Roberto Alsina]:

(to which Dave interjects, even though he's not "following me around
from thread to thread like a puppy")

> >>>>>>> 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.
>
> >> That's for the benefit of other readers, Marty, who may not be familiar
> >> with your dishonest acts.
>
> > As grateful as I'm sure they all are, you have yet to point out any
> > dishonest acts on my part.
>
> Incorrect.  I've pointed out all the erroneous statements you've made
> about me, Marty.

Incorrect as I have not made erroneous statements about you.

> > Meanwhile, if you have dismissed me, then you would pay me no mind
> > and ignore my postings.
>
> Illogical, given that other readers may not have dismissed you, which
> means there is value in countering your continued lies about me.

Erroneously presupposing that there have been any such "lies".

> > By the way, dismissing someone is a very close-minded thing to do.
>
> Not when the evidence warrants the action, Marty.

And what evidence has warranted such a thing Dave?

> >>> Your actions are once again in conflict with your words.
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.  There's no conflict.
>
> > Wrong again.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can, Marty.

Meanwhile, if you have dismissed me, then you would pay me no mind and
ignore my postings.  By the way, dismissing someone is a very
close-minded thing to do.

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.
>
> >> That doesn't change the fact that you made the claim, Marty, therefore
> >> the burden of proof is on your shoulders.
>
> > I've already substantiated my claim by pointing to your postings.
>
> Not enough of them, Marty.

How many is "enough" Dave?  Any casual reader who encounters a given
post of yours can conclude what I have concluded.

> >>> I've already sited your postings as my evidence.
>
> >> And where were those postings allegedly sited, Marty?  Or did you
> >> really mean "cited"?
>
> > Pardon me professor.  I forgot that because you're perfect, I have to be
> > too.
>
> I never said that, Marty.  Having more reading comprehension problems?

Your actions say it.  You correct me with snide arrogance as if you
expect me to be perfect.  Although, that's probably just a part of your
infantile game.  Reading comprehension is not at issue here.

> >> Citing a tiny subset of my postings does nothing
> >> to support your argument, Marty.
>
> > I claim 50% of all of your postings of the last year as my evidence.
>
> Prove your claim, if you think you can, Marty.  You clearly wrote
> "not done", which means 100 percent do not discuss real issues,
> thus 50% does not even come close to serving as evidence.

Fine 100% of your postings then.

> >>> Present yours or accept my statement.
>
> >> Unnecessary, Marty, because you made the claim, and therefore the burden
> >> of proof falls on your shoulders.
>
> > Any casual observer can see my obvious evidence.
>
> Any casual observer can see the failure of your obvious evidence, Marty.

Then why have they not?  I see postings from "casual observers" that
agree with me, and none that seem to agree with you.

> >>>>> I may have missed it.
>
> >>>> Obviously.
>
> >>> So present it to me then.
>
> >> You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
> >> shoulders, Marty.
>
> > Apparently you refuse to bring to light such simple evidence to prove me
> > incorrect.
>
> You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
> shoulders, Marty.

From the evidence at my disposal, I have formed my own conclusion.  You
have refused to present evidence to sway my opinion, so my conclusion
stands.

> >  My assumption is you do this because you can't.
>
> Illogical, given that not only is your assumption incorrect, you didn't
> have to make an assumption, because I already told you why I haven't
> done that.

From the evidence at my disposal, I have formed my own conclusion.  You
have refused to present evidence to sway my opinion, so my conclusion
stands.

> >>>>> 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?
>
> >> You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
> >> shoulders, Marty.  I shouldn't need any motivation.
>
> > Your motivation should be to clear up misconceptions, FUD, ... as you
> > have claimed in the past.
>
> I'm doing that by challenging you to substantiate your claim.  You
> haven't, which means your claim can be dismissed.

I already pointed to your postings as my evidence, but I see that
doesn't "work for me" because of your double standard.

> > But you've obviously lied in making such a claim.
>
> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.  And to think that
> you wrote:
>
> M] As grateful as I'm sure they all are, you have yet to point out any
> M] dishonest acts on my part.
>
> I just finished pointing out another dishonest act on your part.

Where?  I must have missed the part that made it dishonest.

> >>>>>>> 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?
>
> >> You've assumed guilt unless I can prove my innocence.
>
> > I've logically concluded guilt based on the evidence at my disposal.
>
> What alleged logic of yours, Marty?

The same logic that allowed me to learn x86 assembly language at age
12.  The same logic that I used to make a program to track my father's
business accounts at age 14 which he is still using today.  The same
logic which I used to reverse-engineer a complex piece circuitry to use
in my senior project in college.  The same logic I used to port a
complex program on the order of tens of thousands of lines of C code to
OS/2.  The same logic for which IBM currently pays me and supports my
current lifestyle.  This is the logic which I have utilized.  What
manner of logic have you employed?

> >>> I'm stating my observations.
>
> >> You're making unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
>
> > I'm stating my observations.
>
> You're stating your lies, Marty.

Prove it, if you think you can.  Prove that I have not observed what I
claim I have observed.

> >>> Your flat rejection of them
>
> >> With good reason, given that they are not true.
>
> > Try again.
>
> Unnecessary.

Ok.  Then your statement falls flat as usual.

> >>> and admittance that you have dismissed me long ago
>
> >> Based on your unsubstantiated and erroneous claims, as well as your
> >> admission that you play an "infantile game".
>
> > So I must always play an infantile game if I played one at one time?
>
> I never said that, Marty.

Then why even mention my previous "admission that you play an 'infantile
game'."  That would be irrelevant Dave, but that's never stopped you
before.

> > By that reasoning, we are all playing infantile games.
>
> Illogical, Marty.

Perfectly logical given the precept:  So I must always play an infantile
game if I played one at one time?

But I don't expect you'd recognize that after removing the statement
from its context as you usually do (and have done).

> > Obviously your reasoning is flawed yet again.
>
> Such a flawed conclusion is based on your own flawed reasoning, Marty.

And my flawed reasoning is what IBM is paying me for.  Hmm... perhaps
someone else's reasoning is flawed here.

> >>> is conclusive evidence of your closed mind, however.
>
> >> Illogical, Marty.  My mind has been open to all the evidence you've
> >> provided me.
>
> >>>>> When you have, I'll retract.
>
> >>>> That's not how an open mind wor[k]s, Marty.
>
> >>> How would you know, Dave?
>
> >> How ironic.
>
> > You still haven't addressed how you would [k]no[w] how an open mind works.
>
> On the contrary, I have.

Evidence, please.

> > I'm not surprised.
>
> I"m not surprised that you're not surprised, Marty.

And the reason you're not surprised is because you see my point, in
spite of your infantile game.

> >>>>>>> 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.
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm countering your so-called "points".
>
> > You're doing a bang-up job of it.
>
> Ambiguous.

A new catch phrase.  Impressive.

> >>>>> 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're the one who claimed that I removed all context and common sense,
> >> Marty, therefore the burden of proof falls on your shoulders.
>
> > I site your postings as my evidence.
>
> And where is this alleged site, Marty?  Or did you really mean "cite"?

Thank goodness flawless Dave is here to correct obvious spelling
errors.  I cite your postings as my evidence.

> >>> You have yet to present evidence to the contrary.
>
> >> You have yet to present evidence.
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.  I cite your postings as my
evidence.

> >>>>> 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.
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> > Anyone who reads your postings has ample evidence to substa[n]tiate my
> > claim.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.

Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.  But you're allowed to make
an unsupported statement like that right?  More evidence of your double
standard.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             25-Oct-99 22:27:18
  To: All                                               25-Oct-99 21:17:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7v15tr$ev7$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:

> >> On the contrary, my concern is the allegedly analogous word, not
the
>
> > No one word is the concern of the data.
>
> Then why did you indicate that an analogous word exists, Lucien?

I indicated that there was an analogy between the JDK sentence and
the "costly mistakes" situation.

> > Yet more proof that you do not understand the issue.
>
> Yet more proof that you're trying to change your claim.

See above.

> > I said there was an analogy.
>
> You indicated that there is an analogous word, Lucien.

I indicated that there was an analogy.

> > The proof is in the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> Impossible,

Quite possible.

> given that what you did say recently did not exist at the
> time of that thread.

Irrelevant, given that the syntactic/semantic material in the data is
independent of any chronology.

> Yet another chronological error of yours.

Yet another reasoning error of yours.

> >>>>> I've presented only mere countering of your irrelevancies and
> >>>>> illogic.
>
> >>>> "Mere countering" without supporting explanations is indeed
> >>>> pontification.
>
> >>> Complete analyses and proofs congruent with the data in question
> >>> are in the "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> >> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.
>
> > See the "costly mistakes" thread for the proof.
>
> I can't,

That is obvious.

> given that the alleged proof doesn't exist in that thread.

On the contrary, the proof does exist in that thread.

> "See my responses in the 'costly mistakes' thread for proof."

Nevertheless, you need to review the "costly mistakes" thread for the
proof.

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]                         26-Oct-99 04:59:29
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 05:14:19
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> Roberto Alsina wrote:

>>>> I wrote:

>>>>> Roberto Alsina writes:

>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:

>>>>>>>>> I wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>>>>>>>>>>    --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>>>>> Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed
>>>>>>>>> individual would do?

>>>>>>>> Well, everyone (except Dave) knows the answer to that question,
>>>>>>>> right?

>>>>>>> How would you know what everyone thinks, Roberto?

>>>>>> I am not sure.

>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>>> That's why there is a question mark in that sentence.

>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>>> It took some years, but Dave finally lost his few remaining
>>>>>>>> marbles.

>>>>>>> Typical invective, and rather ironic, coming from someone who
>>>>>>> didn't have enough marbles to compute an average posting rate
>>>>>>> properly.

>>>>>> Hey, you are back to "normal", liar Dave.

>>>>> How ironic, coming from the person who accused me of posting an
>>>>> average of 134 articles a day, and insisted that he was correct,
>>>>> long after it had been proven that he was wrong.

>>>> Poor pathetic lying kook Dave. He can't even keep that Eliza tone
>>>> through the entire post.

>>> Is he playing an infantile game with you Roberto?

>> Not at all, Marty.  I'm simply substantiating a claim.

> By playing an infantile game?

What allegedly "infantile game", Marty?

> How infantile.

You're erroneously presupposing the existence of some "infantile game"
on my part, Marty.  How ironic, considering your admission that you
play an "infantile game".

> Surely there was a better way to substantiate your claim.

Feel free to suggest one, Marty.

>>> It figures.

>> It figures that you wouldn't be able to figure it out.

> It figures that you haven't successfully refuted my claim.

Incorrect, Marty.

> It's a pattern I've been noticing.

You're erroneously presupposing the existence of such a pattern, Marty.
Meanwhile, I've noticed a pattern in your lies about me.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 05:01:25
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 05:14:19
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> I wrote:

>> Roberto Alsina writes:

>>>>>>> Marty wrote:

>>>>>>>> I wrote:

>>>>>>>>> "So, now, fuck you for the reminder."
>>>>>>>>>    --Roberto Alsina

>>>>>>>> Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed
>>>>>>>> individual would do?

>>>>>>> Well, everyone (except Dave) knows the answer to that question,
>>>>>>> right?

>>>>>> How would you know what everyone thinks, Roberto?

>>>>> I am not sure.

>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>> That's why there is a question mark in that sentence.

>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>> It took some years, but Dave finally lost his few remaining
>>>>>>> marbles.

>>>>>> Typical invective, and rather ironic, coming from someone who
>>>>>> didn't have enough marbles to compute an average posting rate
>>>>>> properly.

>>>>> Hey, you are back to "normal", liar Dave.

>>>> How ironic, coming from the person who accused me of posting an
>>>> average of 134 articles a day, and insisted that he was correct,
>>>> long after it had been proven that he was wrong.

>>> Poor pathetic lying kook Dave.

>> Prove that I lied, Roberto, if you think you can.

> From the Navigator 4.7 thread:
>
> DT]  I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.
>  M]  That's a blatent lie.
>
> Care to dispute this?

Yes, I will dispute it, Marty.  I was responding to Mike Timbol,
Marty, not you.  You jumped in to respond to me.  That is, you
initiated the additional exchanges with you.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 01:21:03
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 05:14:20
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > Mike Timbol wrote:
>
> >> I wrote:
>
> >>> Mike Timbol writes:
>
> >>>>>>> Read the rest of the article, Mike.
>
> >>>>>> I did, Dave.
>
> >>>>> You said you couldn't find it, Mike.  Do make up your mind.
>
> >>>> Dave, try and understand the concept that things change with time.
>
> >>> What took so long, Mike?
>
> >> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
> >> that you were referencing.  Since that was the first time you provided
> >> anything that could be searched on, that was the first time I was able
> >> to find the article you were referring to.
>
> > Hm... sounds to me like Dave is playing another infantile game with you
> > Mike.
>
> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.

How predictable.

> In reality, it's Mike Timbol who is playing the game.

Evidence, please.

> Notice his latest lie.  Interesting that you didn't bother to comment on it.

Perhaps because said "lie" is non-existent.

> > But how it sounds to me is irrelevant.
>
> Indeed.  So why did you bother to comment, Marty?

Sarcasm shooting right over your head as usual.  I'm not surprised.

> Still playing your "infantile game"?

The one you invented you mean?

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

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

From: [e-mail]               25-Oct-99 22:56:02
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 05:14:20
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:21:35 GMT, Dale Ross wrote:

>You are replying to my comment. I entered this thread at a specific point to
>address a specific issue. I have no interest in taking you up on any offer
>you might have. I have no interest in debating or arguing with you which OS
>is better. I use Windows because it fits my needs the best. 10 years ago I
>was using OS/2. I made a personal decision in 1992 to go with Windows NT
>over OS/2. I've not regretted that move to date.
>
>If you don't want to run Windows that is OK with me. It doesn't impact me
>one way or the other which OS you choose run.
>

That's a fair statement and I respect your choice.   I posted my note in
response to messages posted in the "Reality check" thread, plus the various
messages posted in the past months by varous people in this newsgroup.   If
those people are so confident that we are using the wrong OS, they should
step up to the plate and put their money where their mouth is.

If you have a certain need to run Windows because of various reasons, there
is no problem with that.   It's only an operating system.   But to smear
OS/2's reliability and stability would be insulting to those of us that
deploy mission critical applications on OS/2 and I would have no choice but
to defend my decision because ultimately my customers will start questioning
me about it.

Please also note that I do not post to nt.advocacy group.   I do not wish to
get into such meaningless advocacy warfare - I am only interested in
defending the truth.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                      26-Oct-99 09:17:21
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 10:18:01
Subj: Re: More Blatent Tholen Lies

From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])

Jeff Glatt? ([e-mail]?) wrote (Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:55:56 GMT):
> And then they plunge into the depths of what can only be described as a
>delusional perception of the world around him.

                                       Sounds a bit like yourself.  But
anyway,
                                       if you don't want to have anything to
do
                                       with the guy, use a killfile, or, as
the
                                       saying goes, who really runs a
nuthouse?

                                        Sounds to me like you like it, and as
I
                                      recall you writing when you got your
case
                                      jumped on last year, you are here for
the
                                         entertainment value.  So, why
complain
                                              when you are so well
entertained?

                                              Yes, I want you to reply to
this.

                                                           Do it, do it, do
it.

                                                       (now read it in
reverse)

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 04:50:24
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 10:18:02
Subj: (1/3) 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.

>>>>> No, but your *postings* do.

>>>> Balderdash, Marty.  My postings don't allow you to conclude that I was
>>>> pretending.

>>> They certainly do,

>> Incorrect.

> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

You're the one who made the claim, Marty, therefore the burden of proof falls
on your shoulders.

>>> as I have concluded such a thing from your postings and nothing prevented
>>> me from doing so.

>> Your conclusion is illogical, Marty.

> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

You're the one who made the claim, Marty, therefore the burden of proof falls
on your shoulders.

>>>>> Are you telling me what I'm allowed to conclude and what I'm not?

>>>> I'm telling you what you can logically conclude.

>>> Quite incorrectly

>> Balderdash, Marty.

> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

You're the one who made the claim, Marty, therefore the burden of proof falls
on your shoulders.

>>> and arrogantly.

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> On the basis that you are <telling> me.

That doesn't prove any arrogance, Marty.

> That's arrogance at its finest.

Balderdash, Marty.

> You can't tell me what to conclude.

I'm telling you what you can logically conclude, Marty.  There is a
difference.

>>>> You can reach all the illogical conclusions you want, Marty, if you want
>>>> to look like a fool.

>>> There's been a whole lot of "looking like a fool" around here, but it is
>>> mostly due to those who responded to song lyrics.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm still waiting for the evidence you claim to have
>> regarding an alleged line by line response to song lyrics.

> Short memory, eh?

Not at all, Marty.

> Meanwhile where is your evidence of illogical conclusion?

The evidence is the lack your substantiation, Marty.

> Why, nowhere to be seen!

What's nowhere to be seen is your substantiation, Marty.  That lack
is my evidence.

> Since this evidence was so easy to come by, I'll gladly provide it
> again to drive the point home (something you are unwilling to do in
> spite of your claims of "obvious evidence" against me).
>
>
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538247932&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&hitnum=7

Here's the contents, Marty:

] 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.

There's no line-by-line response to song lyrics in that article, Marty.

>
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538459252&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=14

Here's the contents, Marty:

] 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.

There's no line-by-line response to song lyrics in that article either,
Marty.  Did you even bother to check your own evidence?

> And after these two posts you go on to say:
> DT] I pointed out the illogic of your usage of those lyrics as responses
> DT] to me.  I said nothing about the lyrics themselves.

Where did I say that, Marty?  Certainly not in response to those two
posts, because there aren't any song lyrics in those two posts.

> How embarassing for you.

Illogical, given that the embarassment is all yours, Marty, having
failed to produce any evidence for a line-by-line response to song
lyrics.

> Please reread those postings and re-evaluate the above statement.

Unnecessary, Marty.  Meanwhile, you need to reevaluate your claim.

>>>>> Funny, but last time I looked, you had no authority over me.

>>>> I don't need any authority over you, Marty.

>>> Then you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot conclude,
>>> logically

>> Yes I do, Marty.

> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Incorrect, Marty.

> What gives you that right?

Understanding of logic, Marty.

>>> or otherwise.

>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't claim I have any right,

> My Dave... this was only a few lines back... getting senile already?

Typical invective.

> M ] Then you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot conclude,
> M ] logically
>
> DT] Yes I do, Marty.

My Marty... getting senile already?  You've swapped the responses,
apparently because of your reading comprehension problem.  I do
have the right to tell you what you can conclude logically.  I did
not claim that I have the right to tell you what you can conclude
otherwise.  You do realize that you wrote "logically or otherwise",
don't you?  You do realize that I responded to each separately,
because the answer for each was different, don't you?

> That's pretty embarassing for you Dave.

Illogical, given that the embarassment is all yours, Marty, given
that you swapped the answers.

> I'll understand if you choose to remove this section from your
> response.

Why would I want to remove more evidence for your reading comprehension
problem, Marty?

>> otherwise.

> Otherwise what?

Put it back together with the rest of the sentence, Marty.  It's
the same "otherwise" as you were referring to.  How embarassing for
you.

>>>>>>> Oh, but I forgot... that doesn't work for me, does it?

>>>>>> No, it doesn't.

>>>>> Again the blatent double-standard.

>>>> What alleged double-standard, Marty?

>>> You have, of course, removed any relevant materials that would indicate
>>> such things.

>> Where have I allegedly done that, Marty?

> Where haven't you done that Dave?

See above for evidence, Marty.

>>>>>>> That only works for you.

>>>>>> Where have I concluded that you're pretending, Marty?

>>>>> Having trouble recognizing that this statement was generalized?

>>>> Having trouble being sequitur, Marty?

>>> Not at all Dave.

>> Then why did you make the statement, Marty?

> Because it was quite appropriate.

Incorrect, given that it was not sequitur.

> The statement was generalized and applied in inappropriate instance
> to it.

Yes your instance was inappropriate.  So once again I can ask "Why did
you make the statement, Marty?"

> This is indicative of your trouble recognizing that the statement was
> generalized.

This is indicative of your trouble recognizing the inappropriateness of
the generalization.

> Of course, someone who removes all context and plugs in any meaning to
> a statement he chooses would probably have a hard time realizing that.

Irrelevant, given that I have not removed all context, Marty.

>>> You've, of course, removed all context from my statements by splitting
>>> them up individually,

>> Incorrect, Marty.  The context is still there.

> The words are still here, but the context is utterly destroyed

Incorrect, Marty.

> thanks to your sentence-by-sentence or often phrase-by-phrase
> commentary "style".

That style doesn't destroy context, Marty.

>>> questioned them as if they had nothing to do with one another,

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> You're doing it now!

No context was destroyed, Marty.

> How embarassing.

For you, Marty.

>>> and reinterpretted them literally in a way that suits you.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  I interpreted them in the way that they were written,
>> Marty.

> How do you know the way that they were written?

By reading them, Marty.

> Did you write them?

Unnecessary, Marty.

> I am more of an authority on what my words say than you are Dave.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?  The words say what they
say.

> That's a fact.

Prove it, Marty.

>>> This allows you to plug your specific instance into my general
>>> statement, and call it "illogical".

>> I used the relevant instance, Marty.  It would illogical to use an
>> irrelevant instance.

> Never stopped you before, nor in this case.

You're erroneously presupposing that I used an irrelevant instance,
Marty.

>>> It's getting old, Dave.

>> How ironic, coming from someone whose postings "got old" a long time
>> ago.

> How did they do that?  Prove it, if you think you can.

By being more your "infantile game", Marty.

>>>>> I'm not surprised.

>>>> I'm not surprised that you were apparently non sequitur.

>>> Nor am I surprised that you failed to comprehend my statement.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I failed to comprehend your
>> statement, Marty.

> Your failure to comprehend is obvious given your replies.

My replies do not indicate any failure to comprehend, Marty.  That's
rather ironic, considering your failure to comprehend my response
to your "logically or otherwise" remark.

>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>> I did no such thing, Marty.  I was simply noting that your claim
>>>> "not 'invective'" is incorrect.

>>> How is, "He's on the road to recovery" classifiable as "invective" Dave?

>> Read the dictionary definition, Marty.

> Ok.  Now what?  How is, "He's on the road to recovery" classifiable as
> "invective" Dave?

Did you bother to comprehend the meaning of the word "invective", Marty?

>>>>> How arrogant.

>>>> How abusive.

>>> How irrelevant.

>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, as the use of abuse is often
>> what indicates the lack of a logical argument.

> Incorrect, as there is no lack of a logical argument on my part.

On the contrary, you don't have a logical argument at all.

> There is however, a failure to comprehend them.

My replies do not indicate any failure to comprehend, Marty.  That's
rather ironic, considering your failure to comprehend my response
to your "logically or otherwise" remark.

>>>>>>> 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.

>>>> Illogical, given that your use of "such things" follows your use of
>>>> invective.

>>> Incorrect, as no "invective" was present.

>> Incorrect, as invective is obviously present.

> Wrong.

Incorrect, as invective is obviously present.

> Prove it, if you think you can.  How is, "He's on the road to
> recovery" classifiable as "invective" Dave?

Did you bother to comprehend the meaning of the word "invective", Marty?

>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>> Simple:  read your postings, Marty.

>>> I have, but this failed to provide me with any evidence of an infantile
>>> game.

>> You obviously didn't read enough of them, Marty.

> I've read all of them Dave (I wrote them, remember?).

You're admitting to writing all that illogic, Marty???

> Is "all" still "not enough"?

It requires comprehension as well, Marty.

> I guess your claim will have to go unsubstantiated again,
> as usual.

The substantiation is their existence, Marty, and the statement of yours
reproduced a few lines down.

>>> Perhaps you should substantiate your claim Dave,

>> I already did, Marty.  I reproduced the following once already:
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Here you are quite clearly stating that you do not wish to see my
>> allegedly "self-absorbed drivel", and you are asking me to keep my
>> ID consistent so that you can filter them out.
>>
>> Suddenly you not only wish to see them, you wish to respond to them,
>> and the filtering process has stopped.

> Do you wish to see my postings Dave?

Non sequitur.

> I'd much prefer if you'd stop posting altogether,

Practice what you preach, Marty.

> hence I still don't "wish to see them".

Use your killfile, Marty.

> I will respond to those whichever postings I feel like, regardless of
message
> filters

And regardless of your claim that you do not wish to see them.  Typical
inconsistency.  Typical illogical.  Typical failure to admit an error.

> (whose workings you are obviously still unaware).

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> This is not evidence of an infantile game Dave.

Balderdash, Marty.

>>> or perhaps you should abondon it as you are clearly wrong.

>> Incorrect, as I am clearly right.

> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Incorrect, as the substantiation is above.

>>>>> You're the one claiming it exists.

>>>> I'm looking at it.

>>> That does not prove it exists.

>> On the contrary, it does, Marty.

> I'm seeing a pink elephant with wings that can do the Mambo in my mind
> Dave.  Does that prove that it exists?

Irrelevant, given that the issue doesn't involve things you see in your
mind, Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 04:50:24
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 10:18:02
Subj: (2/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

>>>>> You then tell me I'm playing it and tell me that I should know the rules
>>>>> and how many points I've earned.

>>>> It's your game, Marty.

>>> If it's my game, then how come I know nothing of it?

>> You do know of it, Marty, and your denial is simply part of your game.

> So now you know me better than I know myself.

I never said that, Marty.

> How absurd and arrogant.

You're erroneously presupposing that I claimed to know you better than
you know yourself, Marty.

>>>>> How can I, seeing as how it is all in your head?

>>>> It's not in my head, Marty.  It's right here in the newsgroup, in plain
>>>> sight for all the readers to see.

>>> Please demonstrate or retract your erroneous claim.

>> It's already been demonstrated, Marty, therefore no retraction is
>> necessary.

> Incorrect.

Typical pontification.

>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>>> See above.

>> The above doesn't change the fact that you made yet another unsubstantiated
>> and erroneous claim, Marty.

> Nor the fact that you just lied.

There is no lie on my part, Marty.

> But don't fret.  We're all used to it by now.

On what basis do you claim to speak for "all", Marty?

>>>>> The evidence you are about to request is above,

>>>> What request, Marty?

>>> DT] "Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."

>> That's not a request, Marty.  That's a statement.

> So you don't desire substantiation for my claim and you accept it?

Irrelevant, given that the statement is not a request.

> Then why make such a statement.

To note the lack of substantiation and to note the existence of another
one of your lies, Marty.

> Stop embarassing yourself Dave.

Practice what you preach, Marty.

>>> You seem to desire evidence for me to substantiate my claim.

>> What seems to you is irrelevant, Marty.

> You desire evidence for me to substantiate my claim.

I indicated no such desire in that sentence, Marty.

>>>>> 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."

>>>> That doesn't prove that I interpret each statement individually, isolated
>>>> from common sense, and staunchly literal when it suits me.

>>> Now read the original, entire paragraph in the context of my posting.

>> Doesn't change a thing, Marty.

> There's more than enough evidence in this and several other thread in
> which we have had correspondence.

Then why are you having such a hard time reproducing some, Marty?

>>> Observe how you split the statement from its context

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I split the statement from its
>> context, Marty.

> You're doing it right now Dave!

No statement was split from its context, Marty.

> How embarassing.

For you, Marty.

>>> and gave a staunchly literal interpretation that suited you.

>> On the contrary, I interpreted what you wrote.

> Staunchly literally in a way that suited you, separated from its
> intended context.

There is no separation from the intended context, Marty, unless you
want to argue that you didn't intend what you wrote, but in that case,
the problem is yours and not mine.

> I'm not question that you interpreted what I wrote.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't say you are.

> I'm pointing out the way in which it was interpretted.

I interpreted it properly, Maryt.

> I wouldn't expect you to pick up on that fact, however.

I wouldn't expect you to admit that I interpreted your statements
properly.

>>>>>>> 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.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty, given that I've been correcting erroneous statements
>>>> made by others.

>>> Where?

>> In this newsgroup, Marty.

> Where?

In this newsgroup, 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.

>>>>> Then I'm not following you around, Dave.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.

>>> Prove that I am following you around Dave.

>> I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.

> That's a blatent lie.

Prove it, if you think you can, Marty.

>> You responded to me, and for no other reason than to continue with
>> your "infantile game",

> Which one would that be?

You have more than one "infantile game", Marty?

> The non-existent one in your head that you have yet to substantiate?

You're erroneously presupposing that your "infantile game" is nonexistent
and that I haven't substantiated its existence.  Here we go again:

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?

Here you are quite clearly stating that you do not wish to see my
allegedly "self-absorbed drivel", and you are asking me to keep my
ID consistent so that you can filter them out.

Suddenly you not only wish to see them, you wish to respond to them,
and the filtering process has stopped.

>> which is obvious,

> To all of the voices present in your head.

What alleged voices in my head, Marty?

>> given the fact that you have not been addressing the issue of the thread.

> Nor have you.

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> Nor do you ever.

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>>> You cannot, just as Brad could not prove that you were following him
>>> around.

>> He didn't claim that I was following him around, Marty, nor was I
>> following him around.

> You cannot prove that I am following you around,

Yes I can, Marty.  I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.
You responded to me, and for no other reason than to continue with
your "infantile game",

> just as Brad would not have been able to prove that you were following
> him around.

Because I wasn't following him around, Marty.

>>> Unless you'd like to demonstrate even more of a double standard,
>>> that is.

>> Impossible, given that one doesn't exist on my part, Marty.

> You're right.  I located several, not one.

Impossible, given that several don't exist on my part, Marty.

>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>> Balderdash, Marty.

>>> Has anyone other than you recognized this "truth"?

>> Yes, Marty.

> Who, where, and when?

My colleagues here, and quite recently.

>>> How then is it obvious?

>> By being aware of the following, Marty:
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Here you are quite clearly stating that you do not wish to see my
>> allegedly "self-absorbed drivel", and you are asking me to keep my
>> ID consistent so that you can filter them out.
>>
>> Suddenly you not only wish to see them, you wish to respond to them,
>> and the filtering process has stopped.

> See above,

See my response above Marty.

> and then remove this from your response as it is duplication.

Your request for how it is obvious is a duplication itself, Marty.

>>>>> I have read the "evidence" and it is not obvious to me.

>>>> That's your problem, Marty.

>>> Incorrect.

>> On the contrary, it is, Marty.

> Again the good professor know me better than I know myself.

Again, I never said that, Marty.

> He know what my problems are and how they affect me.

I know what some of your problems are, and they are clearly affecting
you.

> Sorry Dave, but you are quite incorrect and incapable of proving
> yourself correct yet again.

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>>> It does not impede me in the slightest.

>> Doesn't change the fact that you do have a problem, Marty.

> Or the fact that you just lied again.

What alleged lie, Marty?

>> Not all problem result in an impediment.

> Then they are not problems.

Incorrect, Marty.

> Please consult Mr. Funk or Mr. Wagnels or Mr. Webster.

They won't prove your accusation, Marty.

>>> The problem is with the "evidence" presented, and/or the presenter.

>> There is no problem with my evidence, Marty.

> Other than its non-existence, that is.

Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  The evidence exists.
You complained about its duplication.

>>>> When I ask for the word that is allegedly
>>>> analogous to "prevent" in the current situation, and he points to a
>>>> posting from years ago, it's clear that he playing a game, as the
>>>> current situation did not exist years ago.

>>> That's not proof of playing a game, Dave.

>> Yes it is, Marty.

> Please demonstrate.

Here we go again:

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?

Here you are quite clearly stating that you do not wish to see my
allegedly "self-absorbed drivel", and you are asking me to keep my
ID consistent so that you can filter them out.

Suddenly you not only wish to see them, you wish to respond to them,
and the filtering process has stopped.

>>>>> Seeing as how I qualify as "anyone"

>>>> Did you bother to comprehend the evidence, Marty?

>>> Irrelevant to that fact that I do qualify as "anyone".

>> It requires the ability to comprehend, Marty.  A newborn baby is also
>> "anyone", for example.

> Yes they are Dave.

Glad you agree, Marty.

> Please consult Mr. Funk or Mr. Wagnels or Mr. Webster.

For what, Marty?

> Or save yourself the trouble by realizing that you just lied again

Where is the alleged lie, Marty?

> and I fully comprehend what you've written.

Obviously not, given that you think I lied again.

> How arrogant of you to assume that I could not,

You did not.

> but that's par for the course when it comes to you.

Your "infantile game" is par for your course, Marty.

>>>>> you just lied and can be dismissed.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.

>>> Double standard again.

>> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim again.

> Please do a search for the phrase double AND standard in this group for
> ample evidence to substantiate my claim.

Finding occurrences of those two words won't help, Marty.  All occurrences
applied to me represent unsubstantiated claims.

>>>>>>> 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.

>>>> You deleted the relevant text, Marty.  That's your problem.

>>> Apparently the text was so "obviously" "relevant" that I didn't realize
>>> it was relevant.

>> Obviously you did, which is why you deleted it, given that you are also
>> playing an "infantile game".

> Your premise is both unproven and incorrect.

Balderdash, Marty.

> You also have no evidence of what is obvious to me and what isn't, making
> the entirety of your statement a lie.

I didn't indicate what is obvious to you, Marty.  I indicated what is
obvious to readers.

>>> Perhaps you can reproduce what you perceived to be "obvious"
>>> "evidence".

>> You're the one who deleted it, Marty.  Fix your own problems.

> I don't know which text is in question Dave.

Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?

> How am I to restore it?

Work backwards through the thread, Marty.  Look for my response to your
request for evidence.

> You claim to be fully capable of restoring it, yet refuse to do so.

You're the one who deleted it, Marty.  Fix your own problems.

> I guess this point is not that important to you.

Your whole "infantile game" isn't that important to me, Marty.  I
expect you'd simply delete it again and claim that you haven't seen
any evidence.

>>>>> The very fact that you'd need to demonstrate why it's obvious proves
>>>>> that it is not.

>>>> On the contrary, it's quite obvious.  That you claim it is not is simply
>>>> more evidence of your own "infantile game".

>>> Incorrect.  The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is
>>> evidence of your own infantile game,

>> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of such a fact, Marty, but
>> I have successfully demonstrated the fallacy of the claim to all the
>> others who have attempted to use it.

> I would like to be proven wrong on this.  Please demonstrate.

Here we go again:

] Date: 10 Dec 1997 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <66l54r$[e-mail]>
]
] DougWMI writes:
]
] >> "I've been dead before."
] >>   --Mr. Spock, Star Trek V (The Final Frontier)
]
] > Actually, Spock said this in Star Trek VI, not V.
]
] The Undiscovered Country.  I stand corrected.

Now, Marty, just how long will it take you to admit that you're wrong,
and that you lied?

>>> as well as arrogance

>> What alleged arrogance, Marty?

> Do a search in Deja News for the word arrogant in my postings in this
> group.

How would that identify my alleged arrogance, Marty?

> It describes your behavior.

Actually, it describes your unsubstantiated allegation.

>>> and hypocracy.

>> There is no such word, Marty, so how can I be guilty of it?

> Incorrect.

Check your dictionary, Marty.

> The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong

Yet another lie.  See above, Marty.

> is evidence of your own infantile game,

Impossible, given that your alleged "fact" is not a fact at all, Marty.
See above for the evidence.

> as well as arrogance,

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> and hypocricy.

There is no such word, Marty, so how can I be guilty of it?  Gee, even
after calling your attention to it once, you still got it wrong.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 04:50:24
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 10:18:02
Subj: (3/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

>>>>>>> Your "evidence" below does not support this statement.

>>>>>> Balderdash, Marty.  Or do you believe in time warps?

>>>>> Taking a stab at absurd irrelevancies?

>>>> On the contrary, Marty, it's quite relevant.

>>> Incorrect.  "Time warps" are irrelevant to this context,

>> Incorrect, Marty, given that the chronology si reversed.

> How can chronology "si" reversed?

By claiming that the present occurred in the past, Marty.  Read the
evidence.  Then try to comprehend it.

>>> especially considering how none have been proven to exist.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  I proved that it existed, and you deleted that proof.

> Because I didn't know it was proof.

That doesn't justify your deletion, Marty.

> I still don't know to what you are referring,

That's your problem, Marty, given that you deleted it.

> yet you expect me to restore it.

Think twice before deleting something else, Marty.

> How illogical.

Nothing illogical about it, Marty.

>>>>> You sure nailed that one.

>>>> On the contrary, Marty, you blew that one.

>>> Why would I "blow" anything Dave?

>> To play your "infantile game", Marty.

> You sure know a lot about "my" infantile game Dave.

Yes I do, Marty.  Hundreds of lines of it.

> I believe that you are demonstrating what psychiatrists call
> "projection", where you place your own worst attributes on
> someone else and denounce them for it.

What you believe is irrelevant, Marty.  But maybe that explains
all of your false accusations about me.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 01:18:07
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 10:18:02
Subj: (1/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>> Marty writes [to Roberto Alsina]:
>
> > (to which Dave interjects, even though he's not "following me around
> > from thread to thread like a puppy")
>
> I've been in this thread longer than you have, Marty, thus I couldn't
> possibly be following you around like a puppy.

Incorrect, as "following around" goes beyond the bounds of this thread.

[much duplication removed]

> > Meanwhile, if you have dismissed me, then you would pay me no mind and
> > ignore my postings.
>
> Illogical, Marty.  As I said once already, there's no guarantee that
> readers have dismissed you, therefore there is a reason to not ignore
> your postings.

If a reader adopts my manor of thinking, then is that not grounds for
their own dismissal?  Therefore, there is no reason not to ignore my
postings.

> I do find that rather ironic, coming from someone who
> claimed that he wanted to ignore my postings, but hasn't been doing so.

I wanted to and I had.  Apparently everything in your world is
immutable.  Another sign of a closed mind.

> > By the way, dismissing someone is a very close-minded thing to do.
>
> Not when the evidence warrants the action, Marty.

Not that any evidence was present, mind you.

> > Your actions are once again in conflict with your words.
>
> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Wrong again.

> >>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>> That doesn't change the fact that you made the claim, Marty, therefore
> >>>> the burden of proof is on your shoulders.
>
> >>> I've already substantiated my claim by pointing to your postings.
>
> >> Not enough of them, Marty.
>
> > How many is "enough" Dave?
>
> The number corresponding to your claim, Marty.

But my original claim wasn't good enough for you, so I upped the ante to
something blatently unreasonable.  Of course, it doesn't dawn on you
that your "required standard" was unreasonable to begin with.  I'm not
surprised.

> > Any casual reader who encounters a given post of yours can conclude what
> > I have concluded.
>
> Illogical, given that you made a conclusion about all of my postings.

See above.

> >>>>> I've already sited your postings as my evidence.
>
> >>>> And where were those postings allegedly sited, Marty?  Or did you
> >>>> really mean "cited"?
>
> >>> Pardon me professor.  I forgot that because you're perfect, I have to be
> >>> too.
>
> >> I never said that, Marty.  Having more reading comprehension problems?
>
> > Your actions say it.
>
> My actions never said that, Marty.  Having more reading comprehension
> problems?

Spelling and typo corrections are irksome and speak of a snide, arrogant
attitude.  This isn't good enough for you as you have to blatently point
out and even highlight mispellings, leaving them uncorrected.

> > You correct me with snide arrogance as if you expect me to be perfect.
>
> What alleged "snide arrogance", Marty?

See above.

> > Although, that's probably just a part of your infantile game.
>
> I'm not playing any "infantile game", Marty.  That's your department.
>
> > Reading comprehension is not at issue here.
>
> Yes it is, Marty, given that you've accused me of saying things that I
> haven't said.

Incorrect.

> >>>> Citing a tiny subset of my postings does nothing
> >>>> to support your argument, Marty.
>
> >>> I claim 50% of all of your postings of the last year as my evidence.
>
> >> Prove your claim, if you think you can, Marty.  You clearly wrote
> >> "not done", which means 100 percent do not discuss real issues,
> >> thus 50% does not even come close to serving as evidence.
>
> > Fine 100% of your postings then.
>
> Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?  You must be, given
> that you could not have read 100% of postings and honestly made the claim
> that none of them discuss real issues.

You obviously failed to see how unreasonable you are being.  I'm not
surprised.

> >>>>> Present yours or accept my statement.
>
> >>>> Unnecessary, Marty, because you made the claim, and therefore the
burden
> >>>> of proof falls on your shoulders.
>
> >>> Any casual observer can see my obvious evidence.
>
> >> Any casual observer can see the failure of your obvious evidence, Marty.
>
> > Then why have they not?
>
> How would you know, Marty?

There is no evidence as such.  There is, however, evidence to the
contrary.

> > I see postings from "casual observers" that agree with me,
>
> Who are these allegedly "casual observers", Marty?

Any normal, well adjusted, relaxed individuals participating in this
thread.

> > and none that seem to agree with you.
>
> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?

Nope.  Where are the casual observers that agree with you and disagree
with me Dave?

> >>>>>>> I may have missed it.
>
> >>>>>> Obviously.
>
> >>>>> So present it to me then.
>
> >>>> You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
> >>>> shoulders, Marty.
>
> >>> Apparently you refuse to bring to light such simple evidence to prove me
> >>> incorrect.
>
> >> You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
> >> shoulders, Marty.
>
> > From the evidence at my disposal, I have formed my own conclusion.
>
> An illogical conclusion, Marty.

Incorrect.

> > You have refused to present evidence to sway my opinion, so my conclusion
> > stands.
>
> Not logically, Marty, given the lack of evidence for your claim.

The evidence is all around us.  You write it by the reams daily.

> >>>  My assumption is you do this because you can't.
>
> >> Illogical, given that not only is your assumption incorrect, you didn't
> >> have to make an assumption, because I already told you why I haven't
> >> done that.
>
> > From the evidence at my disposal, I have formed my own conclusion.
>
> An illogical conclusion, Marty.

Incorrect.  It was a logical conclusion given the evidence I had at my
disposal.  As you don't know what evidence I have had at my disposal,
you have no grounds to claim my conclusion is illogical.

> > You have refused to present evidence to sway my opinion, so my conclusion
> > stands.
>
> Not logically, Marty, given the lack of evidence for your claim.

See above.

> >>>>>>> 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?
>
> >>>> You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
> >>>> shoulders, Marty.  I shouldn't need any motivation.
>
> >>> Your motivation should be to clear up misconceptions, FUD, ... as you
> >>> have claimed in the past.
>
> >> I'm doing that by challenging you to substantiate your claim.  You
> >> haven't, which means your claim can be dismissed.
>
> > I already pointed to your postings as my evidence,
>
> Not enough of them, Marty.

You are helping me out with every posting you write Dave.

> > but I see that doesn't "work for me" because of your double standard.
>
> What alleged double standard, Marty?  I'm not the one who made the claim.

You are the one who's own brand of "evidence" "doesn't work on you".  Do
you have a "cootie shot" that makes you immune?

> >>> But you've obviously lied in making such a claim.
>
> >> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.  And to think that
> >> you wrote:
> >>
> >> M] As grateful as I'm sure they all are, you have yet to point out any
> >> M] dishonest acts on my part.
> >>
> >> I just finished pointing out another dishonest act on your part.
>
> > Where?
>
> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?

Embarassing yourself again Dave?

> M] As grateful as I'm sure they all are, you have yet to point out any
> M] dishonest acts on my part.
>
> > I must have missed the part that made it dishonest.
>
> Reread my responses, Marty.

Nothing apparently changed.

> >>>>>>>>> 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?
>
> >>>> You've assumed guilt unless I can prove my innocence.
>
> >>> I've logically concluded guilt based on the evidence at my disposal.
>
> >> What alleged logic of yours, Marty?
>
> > The same logic that allowed me to learn x86 assembly language at age
> > 12.
> > The same logic that I used to make a program to track my father's
> > business accounts at age 14 which he is still using today.
> > The same logic which I used to reverse-engineer a complex piece circuitry
> > to use in my senior project in college.
> > The same logic I used to port a complex program on the order of tens of
> > thousands of lines of C code to OS/2.
> > The same logic for which IBM currently pays me and supports my
> > current lifestyle.
>
> And you've never made a logical programming error, Marty?
> And you've never made a logical programming error, Marty?
> And you've never made an error in the process, Marty?
> And you've never made a logical programming error, Marty?
> And you've never made a logical programming error, Marty?

Irrelevant.  The point, which you neatly overlook, being that my brand
of logic has been tried and true in the real world.  I developed it at a
young age, and use it to solve complex, real-world problems, in both my
leisure time and to survive and put food on my table.  Can you make a
similar claim about your brand of logic?

> > This is the logic which I have utilized.
>
> Learning a programming language is rather different from understanding
> "If P, then Q" type logic, Marty.  Your failure to realize that is even
> more evidence for your illogic.

And your failure to know the slightest bit about any of the topics I've
mentioned, but be willing to dimiss them as "impure" or "lesser" logic
than your own is evidence of your own arrogance.

> > What manner of logic have you employed?
>
> The kind appropriate to this discussion, Marty.

Incorrect.

> Note how I have not needed to use any programming language.

Irrelevant, as none was required.  You have failed to use real-world
logic, which takes into account many complex factors that don't have
simple 1/0 True/False answers.  This is your biggest shortcoming to
which you will never admit.

> >>>>> I'm stating my observations.
>
> >>>> You're making unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
>
> >>> I'm stating my observations.
>
> >> You're stating your lies, Marty.
>
> > Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Reread my responses, Marty.
>
> > Prove that I have not observed what I claim I have observed.
>
> Simple:  you have failed to provide evidence to substantiate your
> claims, even after repeated requests, and noting that the burden
> of proof falls on your shoulders.

You continue to provide such substantiation even now.

> >>>>> Your flat rejection of them
>
> >>>> With good reason, given that they are not true.
>
> >>> Try again.
>
> >> Unnecessary.
>
> > Ok.  Then your statement falls flat as usual.
>
> Incorrect, given that the burden of proof for claims is on the
> claimant.  That would be you, Marty.

"With good reason, given that they are not true."
- Dave Tholen

That sounds like your claim to me.

> >>>>> and admittance that you have dismissed me long ago
>
> >>>> Based on your unsubstantiated and erroneous claims, as well as your
> >>>> admission that you play an "infantile game".
>
> >>> So I must always play an infantile game if I played one at one time?
>
> >> I never said that, Marty.
>
> > Then why even mention my previous "admission that you play an 'infantile
> > game'."
>
> Historical evidence, Marty.

An irrelevant piece of history which fails to prove a point.

> > That would be irrelevant Dave,
>
> On the contrary, your history of playing an "infantile game" is quite
> relevant, Marty.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> > but that's never stopped you before.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that my remark would be irrelevant, Marty.
>
> >>> By that reasoning, we are all playing infantile games.
>
> >> Illogical, Marty.
>
> > Perfectly logical given the precept:  So I must always play an infantile
> > game if I played one at one time?
>
> Perfectly illogical, given that your precept involves only you, yet your
> claim extended to "all".

Have we not all played an infantile game as infants Dave?  Not all of us
were raised in a laboratory.

> > But I don't expect you'd recognize that after removing the statement
> > from its context
>
> Your statement was not removed from its context, Marty.

Like I said, I don't expect you to recognize that fact.

> > as you usually do (and have done).
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I've removed your statement from its
> context, Marty.

Like I said, I don't expect you to recognize that fact.

> >>> Obviously your reasoning is flawed yet again.
>
> >> Such a flawed conclusion is based on your own flawed reasoning, Marty.
>
> > And my flawed reasoning is what IBM is paying me for.
>
> That's IBM's problem, Marty.

They don't seem to think so.

> > Hmm... perhaps someone else's reasoning is flawed here.
>
> Perhaps not, Marty.

Perhaps so.  Perhaps someone is so close-minded that they can't even
perceive that they are wrong.

> >>>>> is conclusive evidence of your closed mind, however.
>
> >>>> Illogical, Marty.  My mind has been open to all the evidence you've
> >>>> provided me.
>
> >>>>>>> When you have, I'll retract.
>
> >>>>>> That's not how an open mind wor[k]s, Marty.
>
> >>>>> How would you know, Dave?
>
> >>>> How ironic.
>
> >>> You still haven't addressed how you would [k]no[w] how an open mind
works.
>
> >> On the contrary, I have.
>
> > Evidence, please.
>
> See above, Marty.

There is no evidence in this entire posting that you know how an open

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 01:18:07
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 10:18:02
Subj: (2/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

mind works.  There is evidence that you know how a closed mind works,
however.

> >>> I'm not surprised.
>
> >> I'm not surprised that you're not surprised, Marty.
>
> > And the reason you're not surprised is because you see my point, in
> > spite of your infantile game.
>
> What alleged "infantile game" of mine, Marty?

It has been sited in several other articles.  Do a search in Deja News
on my name and "infantile AND game" in the last week (naturally weeding
out the entries that pop up of you falsely accusing me of such a thing).

> >>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm countering your so-called "points".
>
> >>> You're doing a bang-up job of it.
>
> >> Ambiguous.
>
> > A new catch phrase.  Impressive.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that it's a "catch phrase", Marty.

Hasn't quite made it to the Tholen Hall of Shame yet, eh?

> >>>>>>> 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're the one who claimed that I removed all context and common sense,
> >>>> Marty, therefore the burden of proof falls on your shoulders.
>
> >>> I site your postings as my evidence.
>
> >> And where is this alleged site, Marty?  Or did you really mean "cite"?
>
> > Thank goodness flawless Dave is here to correct obvious spelling
> > errors.  I cite your postings as my evidence.
>
> You've done no such thing, Marty.

Incorrect.

> You've merely pontificated that you've read 100% of them

Incorrect again.

> and found no real issues were discussed.

Certainly not in what I've read.

> That is an obvious lie.

Glad you realize your mistake.

> >>>>> You have yet to present evidence to the contrary.
>
> >>>> You have yet to present evidence.
>
> >>> Incorrect.
>
> >> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> On the contrary, the lack of your substantiation is my substantiation,
> Marty.

Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

[duplication removed]

> >>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>> Anyone who reads your postings has ample evidence to substa[n]tiate my
> >>> claim.
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> > Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> On the contrary, the lack of your substantiation is my substantiation,
> Marty.

You've obviously not read responses to my other postings yet.  I'll give
you a while to recover from the embarassment.

> > But you're allowed to make an unsupported statement like that right?
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that my statement is unsupported, Marty.

Incorrect.  You've not supported your claim, Dave.  You've merely
pontificated that I'm playing an infantile game.  That is a statement
for which you obviously have no proof.

> > More evidence of your double standard.
>
> More evidence of your illogic.

Incorrect, as it clearly demonstrates, yet again, your double standard.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 12:16:24
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 14:37:12
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> Roberto Alsina writes:

>>>>>>> Since all the latest quoted material below is either Eliza
>>>>>>> responses pasted by Dave Tholen, or Dave Tholen doing his best
>>>>>>> to sound like Eliza (he did once try to do that and failed
>>>>>>> miserably,

>>>>>> Incorrect, Roberto; I never tried to sound like Eliza.

>>>>> Nonsense.

>> I see you're now engaging in deletion.  What happened to my response
>> that used to be here, Roberto?

> How ironic, coming from the person who cut a conditional phrase in half,
> removing the "then" clause from the "if" clause and claiming I was
> inconsistent, reposting the misquote tens of times in a given posting as
> if it proved a point.

Back to that old argument, Marty?  The premise had already been
established, as I quite clearly demonstrated the last time you
chose to go on and on about it.  You continued to ignore that fact.

>>> Evidence is not enough,

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?

> Perhaps if you read his sentences before cutting them into tiny pieces
> you'd find out.

You're erroneously presupposing that I didn't read his sentences, Marty.
You're also erroneously presupposing that I cut them into tiny pieces.

>>> and your evidence is basically flawed.

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?

> You are a proven liar, and therefore can be dismissed.

You never proved that I am a liar, Marty.  However, I did prove that
you are a liar when you wrote:

M] The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is evidence
M] of your own infantile game

I reproduced an admission of being wrong, therefore your statement is
not the fact you claimed it to be.  Thus your claim that I am a proven
liar can be dismissed.

>>> and that "everyone that wants to make a coherent argument"
>>> should care about what you think, so it's not like your word
>>> is worth anything.

>> On the contrary, my evidence is worth something.

> Incorrect.  You are a proven liar, and therefore can be dismissed.

You never proved that I am a liar, Marty.  However, I did prove that
you are a liar when you wrote:

M] The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is evidence
M] of your own infantile game

I reproduced an admission of being wrong, therefore your statement is
not the fact you claimed it to be.  Thus your claim that I am a proven
liar can be dismissed.

>>> liar kook.

>> How ironic, coming from someone who not only lied about the 134 articles
>> a day, but also responded to Eliza.

> How ironic indeed coming from a proven liar.

You never proved that I am a liar, Marty.  However, I did prove that
you are a liar when you wrote:

M] The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is evidence
M] of your own infantile game

I reproduced an admission of being wrong, therefore your statement is
not the fact you claimed it to be.  Thus your claim that I am a proven
liar can be dismissed.

>>> I already replied to that,

>> Where is your admission that you are wrong, Roberto, and that you did
>> lie?

> Right next to yours Dave.

Incorrect, Marty.

>>> and you simply gave a non sequitur quote as an answer,

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?

>>> I'd say you either granted my point,

>> What you'd say is wrong, Roberto.

>>> or simply you don't care about the truth.

>> How ironic, coming from someone who didn't care about the truth when
>> he claimed that I posted an average of 134 articles a day.

> And equally ironic, if not moreso, having this pointed out by a proven
> liar who's lie didn't even resemble the truth.

You never proved that I am a liar, Marty.  However, I did prove that
you are a liar when you wrote:

M] The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is evidence
M] of your own infantile game

I reproduced an admission of being wrong, therefore your statement is
not the fact you claimed it to be.  Thus your claim that I am a proven
liar can be dismissed.

>>>>>>> So, just call him a liar,

>>>>>> But you're a liar, Roberto, which means that your claim can be
>>>>>> dismissed.

>>>>> Evidence is in this thread, recent and fresh for everyone to
>>>>> notice your lie.

>>>> What alleged lie, Roberto?

>>> The one mentioned above.

>> There is no lie of mine above, Roberto.

> They permeate most of your other writings, however.

That is a lie, Marty, coming from a proven liar:

M] The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is evidence
M] of your own infantile game

I reproduced an admission of being wrong, therefore your statement is
not the fact you claimed it to be.  Thus your claim that I am a proven
liar can be dismissed.

>>> You forgot already?

>> You're erroneously presupposing that you identified a lie of mine,
>> Roberto.

> He didn't have to.  You are a proven liar and can therefore be
> dismissed.

You never proved that I am a liar, Marty.  However, I did prove that
you are a liar when you wrote:

M] The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is evidence
M] of your own infantile game

I reproduced an admission of being wrong, therefore your statement is
not the fact you claimed it to be.  Thus your claim that I am a proven
liar can be dismissed.

>>>>>>> and whenever he tries to argue about it, dismiss him because of
>>>>>>> his diminished credibility.
>>>>>>> So, now, USENET should be a better place.

>>>>>> Are you planning to leave, Roberto?

>>>>> Not soon, Pinocchio.

>>>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Roberto?  You're not
>>>> respnding to Pinocchio.

>>> It was meant as an insult.

>> It figures.  It's what people like you use when you don't have a
>> logical arguemtn.

> And prejudicial stereotyping is what closed-minded liars "like you" do
> when you've been caught with your pants down.

You never proved that I am a liar, Marty.  However, I did prove that
you are a liar when you wrote:

M] The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is evidence
M] of your own infantile game

I reproduced an admission of being wrong, therefore your statement is
not the fact you claimed it to be.  Thus your claim that I am a proven
liar can be dismissed.

>>> Looks like you didn't comprehend it.

>> Looks like you don't have a logical argument.

>>> Also, there is no such a word as "respnding" as you told Marty.

>> Where did I tell Marty that, Roberto?

> More proof of overly literal interpretation.

Illogical, Marty, given that I asked a simple question.

> You've nit-picked my spelling in lieu of answering my questions or
> responding to my statements.

But you're just playing an "infantile game", Marty.

> This fact is obviously lost on you.

But you're a proven liar, Marty, and can therefore be dismissed.

>>> You claim not to be illogical.

>> There is nothing illogical about applying your own standards to you,
>> Roberto.

> How ironic considering you failed to recognize when this is done to you.

On the contrary, I recognize when someone is trying to apply what they
think are my standards to me, but the problem is that they don't
understand the difference between my real standards and my application
of someone else's standards to that someone else.

>>> You are a hypocrite.

>> Illogical, Roberto.

> Yes.

Glad you agree, Marty.

> You're also illogical Dave.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim, coming from a proven liar.

> You forgot to add that Roberto.

You're responding to me, Marty, not Roberto.

> As per Dave's correction, the statement should read, "You are an illogical
> hypocrite."

Where is that alleged correction, Marty?

>> If you question the identity of Eliza above, I suggest you take a closer
>> look at the article that you have pointed to as "evidence" that I
>> responded to Eliza without realizing it.  Look familiar, Roberto?

> And if you question whether or not this is an infantile game that Dave
> is playing I suggest you read up on what Dave himself thinks is adequate
> enough proof of an infantile game being played.

How will that help, Marty?  Adequate proof that *you* are playing your
own "infantile game" won't necessarily apply to Roberto.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 02:16:26
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 14:37:12
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:

[repetetive ramblings removed]

> >>> and arrogantly.
>
> >> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
>
> > On the basis that you are <telling> me.
>
> That doesn't prove any arrogance, Marty.

You are telling me what I should conclude.  That is arrogance Dave.
Your refusal to accept that fact is further evidence thereof.

> > You can't tell me what to conclude.
>
> I'm telling you what you can logically conclude, Marty.  There is a
> difference.

You can't tell me what I can logically conclude, as you may have been in
error (as in this case).  As surely as I "can make a programming error",
you can make a logical error.

> >>>> You can reach all the illogical conclusions you want, Marty, if you
want
> >>>> to look like a fool.
>
> >>> There's been a whole lot of "looking like a fool" around here, but it is
> >>> mostly due to those who responded to song lyrics.
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm still waiting for the evidence you claim to have
> >> regarding an alleged line by line response to song lyrics.
>
> > Short memory, eh?
>
> Not at all, Marty.

Your response is evidence to the contrary.

> > Meanwhile where is your evidence of illogical conclusion?
>
> The evidence is the lack your substantiation, Marty.

You obviously didn't bother to read the evidence presented.  That's your
problem, not mine.

> > Why, nowhere to be seen!
>
> What's nowhere to be seen is your substantiation, Marty.  That lack
> is my evidence.

Stop embarassing yourself.

> > Since this evidence was so easy to come by, I'll gladly provide it
> > again to drive the point home (something you are unwilling to do in
> > spite of your claims of "obvious evidence" against me).
> >
> >
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538247932&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&hitnum=7
>
> Here's the contents, Marty:
>
> ] 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.
**SL**
> ]
> ] Non sequitur.  You didn't answer my question, Marty.
> ]
> ] > You probably think this thread is about you.
**SL** [thread substituted for song]

> ]
> ] Incorrect, Marty.  You still didn't answer my question.
> ]
> ] > You're so vain.
**SL**
> ]
> ] Non sequitur.  You still didn't answer my question, Marty.
> ]
> ] > I bet you think this thread is about you.
**SL** [thread substituted for song]
> ]
> ] Incorrect, Marty.  You still didn't answer my question.
> ]
> ] > Don't you?  Don't you?
**SL**
> ]
> ] 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.
>
> There's no line-by-line response to song lyrics in that article, Marty.

Blatently incorrect Dave.  The song lyrics have been notated above and
below with **SL**.  Please stop embarassing yourself.  Even I have a
conscience somewhere.

> >
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538459252&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=14
>
> Here's the contents, Marty:
>
> ] 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,
**SL** ["Mr. Tholen" substituted for "said the night man"]
> ]
> ] What makes you think I'm not already relaxed, Marty?
> ]
> ] > My killfile is programmed to receive.
**SL** ["My killfile" substituted for "We are"]
> ]
> ] 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.
**SL**
> ]
> ] Illogical.
>
> There's no line-by-line response to song lyrics in that article either,
> Marty.  Did you even bother to check your own evidence?

Please stop embarassing yourself.

> > And after these two posts you go on to say:
> > DT] I pointed out the illogic of your usage of those lyrics as responses
> > DT] to me.  I said nothing about the lyrics themselves.
>
> Where did I say that, Marty?  Certainly not in response to those two
> posts, because there aren't any song lyrics in those two posts.

http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538655385&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=16

This came in response to my rendition of "Hotel California" by the
Eagles.  Please stop embarassing yourself.

[part of Tholen's foot removed from his mouth out of mercy]

> >>> Then you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot conclude,
> >>> logically
>
> >> Yes I do, Marty.
>
> > Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> > What gives you that right?
>
> Understanding of logic, Marty.

And your understanding of logic is flawless such that you can
definitively tell me what I may conclude.  Furthermore, your
understanding of logic is superior to mine by your assumption?  How
arrogant.

> >>> or otherwise.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that I didn't claim I have any right,
>
> > My Dave... this was only a few lines back... getting senile already?
>
> Typical invective.

You presented evidence of senility.  No "invective" was present in my
comment.

> > M ] Then you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot conclude,
> > M ] logically
> >
> > DT] Yes I do, Marty.
>
> My Marty... getting senile already?

Typical invective.

> You've swapped the responses, apparently because of your reading
> comprehension problem.

Are these not the same word that were written, verbatim, with nothing
inserted or missing?  Seems like someone has a reading comprehension
problem, but that "someone" isn't me.

> I do have the right to tell you what you can conclude logically.

Incorrect, as shown a bit above.

> I did not claim that I have the right to tell you what you can conclude
> otherwise.  You do realize that you wrote "logically or otherwise",
> don't you?  You do realize that I responded to each separately,
> because the answer for each was different, don't you?

And you do realize that I just applied your own "technique" back at you,
don't you?

> > That's pretty embarassing for you Dave.
>
> Illogical, given that the embarassment is all yours, Marty, given
> that you swapped the answers.

I pity you.

> > I'll understand if you choose to remove this section from your
> > response.
>
> Why would I want to remove more evidence for your reading comprehension
> problem, Marty?

Terribly sorry I made you shove your foot so far down your throat.

> >> otherwise.
>
> > Otherwise what?
>
> Put it back together with the rest of the sentence, Marty.  It's
> the same "otherwise" as you were referring to.  How embarassing for
> you.

Poor Dave.

> >>>>>>> Oh, but I forgot... that doesn't work for me, does it?
>
> >>>>>> No, it doesn't.
>
> >>>>> Again the blatent double-standard.
>
> >>>> What alleged double-standard, Marty?
>
> >>> You have, of course, removed any relevant materials that would indicate
> >>> such things.
>
> >> Where have I allegedly done that, Marty?
>
> > Where haven't you done that Dave?
>
> See above for evidence, Marty.

And now you wish to use my demonstration as evidence against me.  Stop
embarassing yourself.

> >>>>>>> That only works for you.
>
> >>>>>> Where have I concluded that you're pretending, Marty?
>
> >>>>> Having trouble recognizing that this statement was generalized?
>
> >>>> Having trouble being sequitur, Marty?
>
> >>> Not at all Dave.
>
> >> Then why did you make the statement, Marty?
>
> > Because it was quite appropriate.
>
> Incorrect, given that it was not sequitur.

It is now, since you've destroyed the context, but originally it was
quite sequitur.

[repetition removed]

> >>> You've, of course, removed all context from my statements by splitting
> >>> them up individually,
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.  The context is still there.
>
> > The words are still here, but the context is utterly destroyed
>
> Incorrect, Marty.

How is the context maintained, being that the flow of the statements
have been decisively destroyed?  I don't expect you to understand the
concept of context.

> > thanks to your sentence-by-sentence or often phrase-by-phrase
> > commentary "style".
>
> That style doesn't destroy context, Marty.

Incorrect.

> >>> questioned them as if they had nothing to do with one another,
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> > You're doing it now!
>
> No context was destroyed, Marty.

Please stop embarassing yourself.

> > How embarassing.
>
> For you, Marty.

Please stop embarassing yourself.

> >>> and reinterpretted them literally in a way that suits you.
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.  I interpreted them in the way that they were written,
> >> Marty.
>
> > How do you know the way that they were written?
>
> By reading them, Marty.

That's not adequate to make your claim of interpreting them the way they
were written.

> > Did you write them?
>
> Unnecessary, Marty.

Quite necessary, considering your claim of interpreting them the way
they were written.

> > I am more of an authority on what my words say than you are Dave.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?  The words say what they
> say.

Therein lies a fundamental flaw in your logic and reasoning process.

> > That's a fact.
>
> Prove it, Marty.

No need.  It is obvious to anyone with an understanding of English being
a language subject to interpretation.

> >>> This allows you to plug your specific instance into my general
> >>> statement, and call it "illogical".
>
> >> I used the relevant instance, Marty.  It would illogical to use an
> >> irrelevant instance.
>
> > Never stopped you before, nor in this case.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I used an irrelevant instance,
> Marty.

Incorrect.

> >>> It's getting old, Dave.
>
> >> How ironic, coming from someone whose postings "got old" a long time
> >> ago.
>
> > How did they do that?  Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> By being more your "infantile game", Marty.

Whose existence you have yet to substantiate.  Your own infantile game
is proceeding well it seems.

> >>>>> I'm not surprised.
>
> >>>> I'm not surprised that you were apparently non sequitur.
>
> >>> Nor am I surprised that you failed to comprehend my statement.
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I failed to comprehend your
> >> statement, Marty.
>
> > Your failure to comprehend is obvious given your replies.
>
> My replies do not indicate any failure to comprehend, Marty.

Incorrect.

> That's rather ironic, considering your failure to comprehend my response
> to your "logically or otherwise" remark.

Please stop embarassing yourself.

> >>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>> I did no such thing, Marty.  I was simply noting that your claim
> >>>> "not 'invective'" is incorrect.
>
> >>> How is, "He's on the road to recovery" classifiable as "invective" Dave?
>
> >> Read the dictionary definition, Marty.
>
> > Ok.  Now what?  How is, "He's on the road to recovery" classifiable as
> > "invective" Dave?
>
> Did you bother to comprehend the meaning of the word "invective", Marty?

How is, "He's on the road to recovery" classifiable as "invective"
Dave?  I've noted that you have not substantiated this claim.

> >>>>> How arrogant.
>
> >>>> How abusive.
>
> >>> How irrelevant.
>
> >> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, as the use of abuse is often
> >> what indicates the lack of a logical argument.
>
> > Incorrect, as there is no lack of a logical argument on my part.
>
> On the contrary, you don't have a logical argument at all.

Please stop embarassing yourself.

[more repetition removed]

> >>>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>> Simple:  read your postings, Marty.
>
> >>> I have, but this failed to provide me with any evidence of an infantile
> >>> game.
>
> >> You obviously didn't read enough of them, Marty.
>
> > I've read all of them Dave (I wrote them, remember?).
>
> You're admitting to writing all that illogic, Marty???

More reading comprehension problems?  I've admitted to reading my
postings Dave.

> > Is "all" still "not enough"?
>
> It requires comprehension as well, Marty.

Irrelevant to the question asked.

> > I guess your claim will have to go unsubstantiated again,
> > as usual.
>
> The substantiation is their existence, Marty,

Funny, but that doesn't work for any of my arguments.  Sounds like the
old double standard is at it again.

> and the statement of yours reproduced a few lines down.

Which?

> >>> Perhaps you should substantiate your claim Dave,
>
> >> I already did, Marty.  I reproduced the following once already:
> >>
> >> 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?
> >>
> >> Here you are quite clearly stating that you do not wish to see my
> >> allegedly "self-absorbed drivel", and you are asking me to keep my
> >> ID consistent so that you can filter them out.
> >>
> >> Suddenly you not only wish to see them, you wish to respond to them,
> >> and the filtering process has stopped.
>
> > Do you wish to see my postings Dave?
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> > I'd much prefer if you'd stop posting altogether,
>
> Practice what you preach, Marty.

How does one practice "preferring you to stop posting"?

> > hence I still don't "wish to see them".
>
> Use your killfile, Marty.

And allow the readers to be mislead by your lies?  That would be quite
convenient for you.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 02:16:26
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 14:37:12
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> > I will respond to those whichever postings I feel like, regardless of
message
> > filters
>
> And regardless of your claim that you do not wish to see them.  Typical
> inconsistency.  Typical illogical.  Typical failure to admit an error.

Responding to a posting doesn't mean I wished to see it.  I'd have much
preferred if there were no lies and inaccuracies to correct, however,
you are an ample supply of such things.  There was no inconsistency,
illogic, failure, or error on my part.

> > (whose workings you are obviously still unaware).
>
> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

You claimed that my filter feature was malfunctioning.  It is not.  This
is your failure to understand its workings.  Quite substantiated and
true.  Typical inconsistency on your part.  Typical illogic on your
part.  Typical failure to admit your error.

> > This is not evidence of an infantile game Dave.
>
> Balderdash, Marty.

Typical pontification, but where is the solid evidence?

> >>> or perhaps you should abondon it as you are clearly wrong.
>
> >> Incorrect, as I am clearly right.
>
> > Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> Incorrect, as the substantiation is above.

No substantiation exists in this posting on your part.

> >>>>> You're the one claiming it exists.
>
> >>>> I'm looking at it.
>
> >>> That does not prove it exists.
>
> >> On the contrary, it does, Marty.
>
> > I'm seeing a pink elephant with wings that can do the Mambo in my mind
> > Dave.  Does that prove that it exists?
>
> Irrelevant, given that the issue doesn't involve things you see in your
> mind, Marty.

It does involve things you are seeing in your mind however, so it is
quite relevant.

> >>>>> You then tell me I'm playing it and tell me that I should know the
rules
> >>>>> and how many points I've earned.
>
> >>>> It's your game, Marty.
>
> >>> If it's my game, then how come I know nothing of it?
>
> >> You do know of it, Marty, and your denial is simply part of your game.
>
> > So now you know me better than I know myself.
>
> I never said that, Marty.

DT] You do know of it, Marty, and your denial is simply part of your
game.

I have out-right told you I know of no such infantile game, yet you tell
me I do.  That tells me you are claiming to know me better than I know
myself, which is a blatent lie.  Please stop embarassing yourself.

> > How absurd and arrogant.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I claimed to know you better than
> you know yourself, Marty.

But you have.

> >>>>> How can I, seeing as how it is all in your head?
>
> >>>> It's not in my head, Marty.  It's right here in the newsgroup, in plain
> >>>> sight for all the readers to see.
>
> >>> Please demonstrate or retract your erroneous claim.
>
> >> It's already been demonstrated, Marty, therefore no retraction is
> >> necessary.
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> Typical pontification.

As was your alleged "demonstration".

> >>>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>> See above.
>
> >> The above doesn't change the fact that you made yet another
unsubstantiated
> >> and erroneous claim, Marty.
>
> > Nor the fact that you just lied.
>
> There is no lie on my part, Marty.
>
> > But don't fret.  We're all used to it by now.
>
> On what basis do you claim to speak for "all", Marty?
>
> >>>>> The evidence you are about to request is above,
>
> >>>> What request, Marty?
>
> >>> DT] "Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."
>
> >> That's not a request, Marty.  That's a statement.
>
> > So you don't desire substantiation for my claim and you accept it?
>
> Irrelevant, given that the statement is not a request.

Pure idiocy to deny such a thing, but this article needs to be
shortened.

[snip]

> > There's more than enough evidence in this and several other thread in
> > which we have had correspondence.
>
> Then why are you having such a hard time reproducing some, Marty?

Feel free to check the evidence.  Is mounding up quite high.

> >>> Observe how you split the statement from its context
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I split the statement from its
> >> context, Marty.
>
> > You're doing it right now Dave!
>
> No statement was split from its context, Marty.

Please stop embarassing yourself.

M] Observe how you split the statement from its context [...]
several lines later
M] and gave a staunchly literal interpretation that suited you.

[I allow Dave to switch feet in his mouth for a while by removing some
further embarassment]

> > I'm not question that you interpreted what I wrote.
> > I'm pointing out the way in which it was interpretted.
>
> I interpreted it properly, Maryt.

Thus claiming that you know my intended meaning better than I do.  More
hypocrisy, lies, and arrogance.

> > I wouldn't expect you to pick up on that fact, however.
>
> I wouldn't expect you to admit that I interpreted your statements
> properly.

And why should I seeing that you haven't.

> >>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty, given that I've been correcting erroneous statements
> >>>> made by others.
>
> >>> Where?
>
> >> In this newsgroup, Marty.
>
> > Where?
>
> In this newsgroup, Marty.

"This newsgroup" is a big place, Dave.  I don't expect you to
substantiate your pontification.

> >>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>> Prove that I am following you around Dave.
>
> >> I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.
>
> > That's a blatent lie.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can, Marty.

Please stop embarassing yourself.

M] Prove that I am following you around Dave. <== my response to you
D] I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.  <== your response to
me
M] That's a blatent lie. <== my response to you

"I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty." was in response to
"Prove that I am following you around Dave.", stated by me in this
thread.

Your failure to admit a mistake this blatent shocked even me and tells
me everything further I need to know about your character and your brand
of "logic".

"So, now, fuck you for the remainder."
    --Roberto Alsina

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 13:49:18
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 14:37:12
Subj: Re: More Blatent Tholen Lies

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Bennie Nelson wrote:

>> Marty wrote:

>>> For those of you that appreciate a good dose of Tholen hypocrisy but
>>> have grown weary of length postings, I reproduce the following concise,
>>> self-contained, blatent lie told by Tholen which he refused to admit
>>> (lifted from the depths of the "Advocacy's Mosquito" thread).  This is
>>> fairly conclusive evidence of a mental illness, or at the very least, an
>>> infantile game played by the wacky professor.  This is one for the
>>> archives.  ;-)
>>>
>>> - Marty
>>>
>>> --------------------------------

>>>>>>> Prove that I am following you around Dave.

>>>>>> I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.

>>>>> That's a blatent lie.

>>>> Prove it, if you think you can, Marty.

>>> Please stop embarassing yourself.
>>>
>>> M] Prove that I am following you around Dave. <== my response to you
>>> D] I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.  <== your response to
>>> me
>>> M] That's a blatent lie. <== my response to you
>>>
>>> "I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty." was in response to
>>> "Prove that I am following you around Dave.", stated by me in this
>>> thread.

>> The operative words being "did not."  Tholen's statement is accurate.

> Sorry, but not quite.  Tholen's responsed to me to say those things.

You responded to me first, Marty.

> If he were not responding to me, then he wouldn't have used my name.

If you had not responded to me, Marty, then your name wouldn't have
appeared as the author of the article to which I was responding.

> "Did not" and "do not" are irrelevant.  He responded to me in that very
> thread multiple times, thus making a mistake.

There is no mistake on my part, Marty.  Rather, you're ignoring the
context of the remark.

> Don't get me wrong, people make mistakes and I am perfectly tolerant
> of them.

You tolerate yourself, and you've made plenty of mistakes.

> Tholen, however, will never admit his error,

Amazing that you persist with that lie, Marty, even after you were
proven wrong.

> even when it is so simple and blatent, which speaks for itself.

There is no error on my part in this case, Marty.  You've ignored
the context, thus the error is all yours.

>> IF he had said, "I DO not respond to you in this thread," then your point
>> would be well taken.  However, since he said "did not" in his current
reply,
>> then the past tense includes only prior posts in the thread,

> Have you looked at the thread in question Bennie?

Obviously he has, Marty.

> You are quite incorrect.

How ironic, coming from someone who is quite incorrect.

>> and not the reply you lifted the quote from.  You are trying to take
>> Tholen's phrase, which clearly referred in the past tense to articles
>> he'd written, and apply his words to the post that included the phrase.
>>
>> For Tholen, that article would have to have been referred to in the present

>> tense while he was constructing it.

> Have you looked at the thread in question Bennie?

Obviously he has, Marty.

> You are quite incorrect.

How ironic, coming from someone who is quite incorrect.

>> For the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that the earlier
>> incarnation of "Advocacy's Mosquito" is not relevant.

>>> Your failure to admit a mistake this blatent shocked even me and tells
>>> me everything further I need to know about your character and your brand
>>> of "logic".

>> Will you admit you misunderstood his meaning because you misunderstood
>> the implication of the tense he used?

> Have you looked at the thread in question Bennie?

Obviously he has, Marty.

> You are quite incorrect.

How ironic, coming from someone who is quite incorrect.

> I have simply subjected his own words to the kind of evaluation which he
> has repeatedly subjected my words as well as many other people.

I see; you're trying to blame your error on me.  How convenient.

> He can dish it, but he surely can't take it.

You're erroneously presupposing that I've been dishing it, Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 13:40:23
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 14:37:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Bennie Nelson writes:

>>> Marty wrote:

>>>> Dave Tholen wrote:

>>>>> Marty writes:

>>>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:

>>>>>>> I wrote:

>>>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the rest of the article, Mike.

>>>>>>>>>>> I did, Dave.

>>>>>>>>>> You said you couldn't find it, Mike.  Do make up your mind.

>>>>>>>>> Dave, try and understand the concept that things change with time.

>>>>>>>> What took so long, Mike?

>>>>>>> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
>>>>>>> that you were referencing.  Since that was the first time you provided
>>>>>>> anything that could be searched on, that was the first time I was able
>>>>>>> to find the article you were referring to.

>>>>>> Hm... sounds to me like Dave is playing another infantile game with you
>>>>>> Mike.

>>>>> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.

>>>> How predictable.

>>>>> In reality, it's Mike Timbol who is playing the game.

>>>> Evidence, please.

>>>>> Notice his latest lie.  Interesting that you didn't bother to comment on
it.

>>>> Perhaps because said "lie" is non-existent.

>>>>>> But how it sounds to me is irrelevant.

>>>>> Indeed.  So why did you bother to comment, Marty?

>>>> Sarcasm shooting right over your head as usual.  I'm not surprised.

>>> Marty,
>>> A number of posts you've made have contained humorous moments.

>> What may seem humorous to a bystander won't necessarily be humorous to
>> the person who is the target of abuse.

>>> Dave did not seem to recognize them as such, or chose to interpret
>>> some or all of them without the humorous ingredients.

>> I've chosen to interpret the ones used to abuse me as abuse.

>>> Your "American Pie" was especially good, I thought.

>> Where did I indicate any interpretation of that so-called "humor"?

> I don't recall if you posted a reply to the parody lyrics derived
> from "American Pie".

What were the lyrics?

> Parody, of course, can be used for comical effect or ridicule.

Part of Marty's "infantile game".

> Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and you replied
> to that one.

Not line by line, as Marty alleged.

> Based upon what I've read in your subsequent posts, it seems that
> you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being ridicule rather
> than humorous.

That's the correct interpretation.

> When I read Marty's posts originally, it seemed to me that he was
> making an attempt at being funny, at your expense, of course, rather
> than ridiculing you.

The key words here are "at your expense".  That's abuse.

> Given the antipathy Marty has expressed towards you, I'm not
> surprised that you did not see it the same way I did.  My
> post was not intended to be critical of you or Marty.

Too bad, as I wish some people would discourage Marty from polluting
this newsgroup with his "infantile game".  He's not accomplishing
anything useful.

> One of my intentions for posting was to see if Marty would admit what
> his motives were in posting the parodies: did he intend them to be
> humorous or for ridicule.

But Marty is a proven liar, thus you would have to take his written
response with a grain of salt.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 13:44:06
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 14:37:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>> The word "implements" does allow for either "some" or "all"
>>>> functionality, in the absence of any other information.

>>> Glad you agree with me.

>> The problem is that there is no absence of other information in the
>> present case, Lucien.

> Irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Lucien.

> Reread your statement, which defines the semantics of the
> situation exactly:
>
> [dt] The word "implements" does allow for either "some" or "all"
> [dt] functionality, in the absence of any other information.

I don't need to reread it, Lucien, as I'm well aware of what I
wrote.  Why do you ignore the fact that there is no absence of
other information in the present situation?

>>>> Thus the use of the word "prevent" eliminates any
>>>> alleged ambiguity.

>>> I think you mean "implements" here.

>> No, I do not.  "Implements" by itself does not eliminate any
>> ambiguity.  In the present case, the ambiguity is resolved via
>> the logical

> Glad you agree with me that there is an ambiguity.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Lucien.  I just
finished saying that the ambiguity is resolved.  How it is resolved
was explained in the portion that you deleted.  How convenient.
Therefore I am saying that there is no ambiguity.

> Good work proving my claim, thanks.

I haven't proven your claim, Lucien, thus your thanks is
inappropriately offered.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 13:53:25
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 14:37:12
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> You never proved that I am a liar, Marty.  However, I did prove that
>> you are a liar when you wrote:
>>
>> M] The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is evidence
>> M] of your own infantile game
>>
>> I reproduced an admission of being wrong,

> I'm sorry Dave, but I missed it.

Yet another example of your reading comprehension problem.

> Which thread was this in?

You mean you don't know?  You've already posted a response to the
article where the evidence appeared.  Interestingly, your response is
382 lines shorter than the article to which you were responding, thus
you engaged in a significant amount of deletion.  That's your problem,
Marty, not mine.

> As I said (and you omitted), I will be glad to be proven wrong on this
> point.

I already did prove you wrong on that point, Marty.  You chose to
delete the evidence.  How convenient.  But yet another example of
your own dishonesty.

> Please humor me and point me to this answer without bullshit
> deflections.

You already posted a response to the article where the evidence
appeared, Marty.  You don't need to be humored.  You need to be
shown as the liar you are.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 14:39:27
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 14:37:12
Subj: (1/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes [to Roberto Alsina]:

>>> (to which Dave interjects, even though he's not "following me around
>>> from thread to thread like a puppy")

>> I've been in this thread longer than you have, Marty, thus I couldn't
>> possibly be following you around like a puppy.

> Incorrect, as "following around" goes beyond the bounds of this thread.

Illogical, given that your remark referred to this thread, Marty.

> [much duplication removed]

How convenient.

>>> Meanwhile, if you have dismissed me, then you would pay me no mind and
>>> ignore my postings.

>> Illogical, Marty.  As I said once already, there's no guarantee that
>> readers have dismissed you, therefore there is a reason to not ignore
>> your postings.

> If a reader adopts my manor of thinking, then is that not grounds for
> their own dismissal?

It depends on the reasons for their adoption, Marty.

> Therefore, there is no reason not to ignore my postings.

Yes there is, Marty.

>> I do find that rather ironic, coming from someone who
>> claimed that he wanted to ignore my postings, but hasn't been doing so.

> I wanted to and I had.

Note the use of the past tense.

> Apparently everything in your world is immutable.

Apparently you can't explain your own inconsistency.

> Another sign of a closed mind.

Another sign of someone whose killfile deprived him of a emotional need
to play an "infantile game".

>>> By the way, dismissing someone is a very close-minded thing to do.

>> Not when the evidence warrants the action, Marty.

> Not that any evidence was present, mind you.

Incorrect, Marty.  I've identified the evidence.

>>> Your actions are once again in conflict with your words.

>> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> Wrong again.

Where is the alleged substantiation, 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.

>>>>>>> If you had nothing to hide, such a simple piece of evidence to gather
>>>>>>> would be no sweat and would quell a detractor.

>>>>>> That doesn't change the fact that you made the claim, Marty, therefore
>>>>>> the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

>>>>> I've already substantiated my claim by pointing to your postings.

>>>> Not enough of them, Marty.

>>> How many is "enough" Dave?

>> The number corresponding to your claim, Marty.

> But my original claim wasn't good enough for you, so I upped the ante to
> something blatently unreasonable.

What is blatantly unreasonable about it, Marty?  You did make the
universal claim.  You do realize that you lied in the process, don't
you?

> Of course, it doesn't dawn on you that your "required standard" was
> unreasonable to begin with.

You're erroneously presupposing that my standard was unreasonable,
Marty.  You made the universal claim, which calls for universal
evidence.

> I'm not surprised.

I'm not surprised that you would make the universal claim, using only
a fraction of the evidence.  You obviously don't care about the truth.

>>> Any casual reader who encounters a given post of yours can conclude what
>>> I have concluded.

>> Illogical, given that you made a conclusion about all of my postings.

> See above.

See above for my response.

>>>>>>> I've already sited your postings as my evidence.

>>>>>> And where were those postings allegedly sited, Marty?  Or did you
>>>>>> really mean "cited"?

>>>>> Pardon me professor.  I forgot that because you're perfect, I have to be
>>>>> too.

>>>> I never said that, Marty.  Having more reading comprehension problems?

>>> Your actions say it.

>> My actions never said that, Marty.  Having more reading comprehension
>> problems?

> Spelling and typo corrections are irksome and speak of a snide, arrogant
> attitude.

Lies, universal claims, "infantile games", killfiles, and song lyrics are
irksome and speak of a snide, arrogant attitude.  How ironic.

> This isn't good enough for you as you have to blatently point
> out and even highlight mispellings, leaving them uncorrected.

Don't you find them entertaining, Marty?  That is, after all, why you
continue to post, isn't it?  You're just playing your "infantile game"
for entertainment purposes.

>>> You correct me with snide arrogance as if you expect me to be perfect.

>> What alleged "snide arrogance", Marty?

> See above.

See my response above.

>>> Although, that's probably just a part of your infantile game.

>> I'm not playing any "infantile game", Marty.  That's your department.

>>> Reading comprehension is not at issue here.

>> Yes it is, Marty, given that you've accused me of saying things that I
>> haven't said.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>>>>> Citing a tiny subset of my postings does nothing
>>>>>> to support your argument, Marty.

>>>>> I claim 50% of all of your postings of the last year as my evidence.

>>>> Prove your claim, if you think you can, Marty.  You clearly wrote
>>>> "not done", which means 100 percent do not discuss real issues,
>>>> thus 50% does not even come close to serving as evidence.

>>> Fine 100% of your postings then.

>> Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?  You must be, given
>> that you could not have read 100% of postings and honestly made the claim
>> that none of them discuss real issues.

> You obviously failed to see how unreasonable you are being.

On what basis do you claim that I'm being unreasonable, Marty?  You are
the one who made the universal claim without universal evidence.  That
is, you're the one who is being unreasonable.

> I'm not surprised.

I'm not surprised that you didn't mention any basis.

>>>>>>> Present yours or accept my statement.

>>>>>> Unnecessary, Marty, because you made the claim, and therefore the
burden
>>>>>> of proof falls on your shoulders.

>>>>> Any casual observer can see my obvious evidence.

>>>> Any casual observer can see the failure of your obvious evidence, Marty.

>>> Then why have they not?

>> How would you know, Marty?

> There is no evidence as such.  There is, however, evidence to the
> contrary.

Where is that alleged evidence to the contrary, Marty?

>>> I see postings from "casual observers" that agree with me,

>> Who are these allegedly "casual observers", Marty?

> Any normal, well adjusted, relaxed individuals participating in this
> thread.

Who might they be, Marty?

>>> and none that seem to agree with you.

>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?

> Nope.  Where are the casual observers that agree with you and disagree
> with me Dave?

Take Bennie Nelson, for example.

>>>>>>>>> I may have missed it.

>>>>>>>> Obviously.

>>>>>>> So present it to me then.

>>>>>> You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
>>>>>> shoulders, Marty.

>>>>> Apparently you refuse to bring to light such simple evidence to prove me
>>>>> incorrect.

>>>> You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
>>>> shoulders, Marty.

>>> From the evidence at my disposal, I have formed my own conclusion.

>> An illogical conclusion, Marty.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>> You have refused to present evidence to sway my opinion, so my conclusion
>>> stands.

>> Not logically, Marty, given the lack of evidence for your claim.

> The evidence is all around us.

Care to be more specific, Marty?

> You write it by the reams daily.

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>>>>>  My assumption is you do this because you can't.

>>>> Illogical, given that not only is your assumption incorrect, you didn't
>>>> have to make an assumption, because I already told you why I haven't
>>>> done that.

>>> From the evidence at my disposal, I have formed my own conclusion.

>> An illogical conclusion, Marty.

> Incorrect.  It was a logical conclusion given the evidence I had at my
> disposal.

Your evidence is insufficient, which should have prevented you from
reaching any conclusion, yet you did anyway, which makes your conclusion
illogical.

> As you don't know what evidence I have had at my disposal,
> you have no grounds to claim my conclusion is illogical.

On the contrary, I know of evidence that you have apparently not seen
or have chosen to ignore, which is the basis for my claim that your
conclusion is illogical.

>>> You have refused to present evidence to sway my opinion, so my conclusion
>>> stands.

>> Not logically, Marty, given the lack of evidence for your claim.

> See above.

See my response above.

>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>>>>> You made the claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls on your
>>>>>> shoulders, Marty.  I shouldn't need any motivation.

>>>>> Your motivation should be to clear up misconceptions, FUD, ... as you
>>>>> have claimed in the past.

>>>> I'm doing that by challenging you to substantiate your claim.  You
>>>> haven't, which means your claim can be dismissed.

>>> I already pointed to your postings as my evidence,

>> Not enough of them, Marty.

> You are helping me out with every posting you write Dave.

Incorrect, Marty.  I'm pointing out your lies and illogic with every
posting I write in response to you.

>>> but I see that doesn't "work for me" because of your double standard.

>> What alleged double standard, Marty?  I'm not the one who made the claim.

> You are the one who's own brand of "evidence" "doesn't work on you".

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> Do you have a "cootie shot" that makes you immune?

You're erroneously presupposing that my own brand of evidence doesn't
work on me, Marty.

>>>>> But you've obviously lied in making such a claim.

>>>> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.  And to think that
>>>> you wrote:
>>>>
>>>> M] As grateful as I'm sure they all are, you have yet to point out any
>>>> M] dishonest acts on my part.
>>>>
>>>> I just finished pointing out another dishonest act on your part.

>>> Where?

>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?

> Embarassing yourself again Dave?

Not at all, Marty.

>> M] As grateful as I'm sure they all are, you have yet to point out any
>> M] dishonest acts on my part.

>>> I must have missed the part that made it dishonest.

>> Reread my responses, Marty.

> Nothing apparently changed.

On the contrary, the length of my article changed.  You deleted the
portion with the evidence.  How convenient for you.

>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>>>>> You've assumed guilt unless I can prove my innocence.

>>>>> I've logically concluded guilt based on the evidence at my disposal.

>>>> What alleged logic of yours, Marty?

>>> The same logic that allowed me to learn x86 assembly language at age
>>> 12.
>>> The same logic that I used to make a program to track my father's
>>> business accounts at age 14 which he is still using today.
>>> The same logic which I used to reverse-engineer a complex piece circuitry
>>> to use in my senior project in college.
>>> The same logic I used to port a complex program on the order of tens of
>>> thousands of lines of C code to OS/2.
>>> The same logic for which IBM currently pays me and supports my
>>> current lifestyle.

>> And you've never made a logical programming error, Marty?
>> And you've never made a logical programming error, Marty?
>> And you've never made an error in the process, Marty?
>> And you've never made a logical programming error, Marty?
>> And you've never made a logical programming error, Marty?

> Irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty.  Just because you can
write a computer program does not mean that you can argue logically.
I see you didn't answer any of my questions.  How convenient.

Why the rearrangement of the text, Marty?  Trying to hide which of
my responses goes with which of your remarks?

> The point, which you neatly overlook, being that my brand
> of logic has been tried and true in the real world.

Meanwhile, you've completely ignored the evidence for my own logic,
demonstrated in my software products and my scientific publications,
for example.

> I developed it at a young age, and use it to solve complex,
> real-world problems, in both my leisure time and to survive
> and put food on my table.

So why doesn't it come through in your postings here, Marty?

> Can you make a similar claim about your brand of logic?

Absolutely, Marty.  Amazing that you didn't realize that I could.

>>> This is the logic which I have utilized.

>> Learning a programming language is rather different from understanding
>> "If P, then Q" type logic, Marty.  Your failure to realize that is even
>> more evidence for your illogic.

> And your failure to know the slightest bit about any of the topics I've
> mentioned,

On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim, Marty?

> but be willing to dimiss them as "impure" or "lesser" logic
> than your own is evidence of your own arrogance.

Where did I allegedly do that, Marty?

>>> What manner of logic have you employed?

>> The kind appropriate to this discussion, Marty.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>> Note how I have not needed to use any programming language.

> Irrelevant, as none was required.

Then why did you bring up your programming experience as evidence,
Marty?

> You have failed to use real-world logic,

On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim, Marty?

> which takes into account many complex factors that don't have
> simple 1/0 True/False answers.

Irrelevant, given that I never said it does, Marty.

> This is your biggest shortcoming to which you will never admit.

Why should I admit to an alleged shortcoming that you have not
provided any substantiation for?

>>>>>>> I'm stating my observations.

>>>>>> You're making unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 14:39:27
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 14:37:12
Subj: (2/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

>>>>> I'm stating my observations.

>>>> You're stating your lies, Marty.

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

>> Reread my responses, Marty.

>>> Prove that I have not observed what I claim I have observed.

>> Simple:  you have failed to provide evidence to substantiate your
>> claims, even after repeated requests, and noting that the burden
>> of proof falls on your shoulders.

> You continue to provide such substantiation even now.

How am I allegedly doing that, Marty?  By pointing out your lies?

>>>>>>> Your flat rejection of them

>>>>>> With good reason, given that they are not true.

>>>>> Try again.

>>>> Unnecessary.

>>> Ok.  Then your statement falls flat as usual.

>> Incorrect, given that the burden of proof for claims is on the
>> claimant.  That would be you, Marty.

> "With good reason, given that they are not true."
> - Dave Tholen
>
> That sounds like your claim to me.

That's a response to your unsubstantiated claims, Marty.

>>>>>>> and admittance that you have dismissed me long ago

>>>>>> Based on your unsubstantiated and erroneous claims, as well as your
>>>>>> admission that you play an "infantile game".

>>>>> So I must always play an infantile game if I played one at one time?

>>>> I never said that, Marty.

>>> Then why even mention my previous "admission that you play an 'infantile
>>> game'."

>> Historical evidence, Marty.

> An irrelevant piece of history which fails to prove a point.

On what basis do you call it irrelevant, Marty?

>>> That would be irrelevant Dave,

>> On the contrary, your history of playing an "infantile game" is quite
>> relevant, Marty.

> Prove it, if you think you can.

It demonstrates your desire to engage in such activities, Marty.

>>> but that's never stopped you before.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that my remark would be irrelevant, Marty.

>>>>> By that reasoning, we are all playing infantile games.

>>>> Illogical, Marty.

>>> Perfectly logical given the precept:  So I must always play an infantile
>>> game if I played one at one time?

>> Perfectly illogical, given that your precept involves only you, yet your
>> claim extended to "all".

> Have we not all played an infantile game as infants Dave?

Irrelevant, given that we are not infants now, Marty.

> Not all of us were raised in a laboratory.

Do you know of any of us that were, Marty?  Are you trying to justify
your actions with such a statement?

>>> But I don't expect you'd recognize that after removing the statement
>>> from its context

>> Your statement was not removed from its context, Marty.

> Like I said, I don't expect you to recognize that fact.

You're erroneously presupposing that it's a fact, Marty.

>>> as you usually do (and have done).

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I've removed your statement from its
>> context, Marty.

> Like I said, I don't expect you to recognize that fact.

You're erroneously presupposing that it's a fact, Marty.

>>>>> Obviously your reasoning is flawed yet again.

>>>> Such a flawed conclusion is based on your own flawed reasoning, Marty.

>>> And my flawed reasoning is what IBM is paying me for.

>> That's IBM's problem, Marty.

> They don't seem to think so.

Maybe their standards are set too low, Marty.

>>> Hmm... perhaps someone else's reasoning is flawed here.

>> Perhaps not, Marty.

> Perhaps so.

Perhaps not, Marty.

> Perhaps someone is so close-minded that they can't even
> perceive that they are wrong.

Perhaps not, Marty.

>>>>>>> is conclusive evidence of your closed mind, however.

>>>>>> Illogical, Marty.  My mind has been open to all the evidence you've
>>>>>> provided me.

>>>>>>>>> When you have, I'll retract.

>>>>>>>> That's not how an open mind wor[k]s, Marty.

>>>>>>> How would you know, Dave?

>>>>>> How ironic.

>>>>> You still haven't addressed how you would [k]no[w] how an open mind
works.

>>>> On the contrary, I have.

>>> Evidence, please.

>> See above, Marty.

> There is no evidence in this entire posting that you know how an open
> mind works.

Check the portions of the thread that you deleted, Marty.

> There is evidence that you know how a closed mind works, however.

I'm witnessing yours, Marty.

>>>>> I'm not surprised.

>>>> I'm not surprised that you're not surprised, Marty.

>>> And the reason you're not surprised is because you see my point, in
>>> spite of your infantile game.

>> What alleged "infantile game" of mine, Marty?

> It has been sited in several other articles.

You mean it's been alleged in several other articles, many of them
yours.

> Do a search in Deja News on my name and "infantile AND game" in the last
> week (naturally weeding out the entries that pop up of you falsely
> accusing me of such a thing).

All that will do is uncover the allegations of which I'm already aware,
Marty.  It does nothing to prove that the allegations are true.

>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm countering your so-called "points".

>>>>> You're doing a bang-up job of it.

>>>> Ambiguous.

>>> A new catch phrase.  Impressive.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that it's a "catch phrase", Marty.

> Hasn't quite made it to the Tholen Hall of Shame yet, eh?

Illogical, 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.

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

>>>>>> You're the one who claimed that I removed all context and common sense,
>>>>>> Marty, therefore the burden of proof falls on your shoulders.

>>>>> I site your postings as my evidence.

>>>> And where is this alleged site, Marty?  Or did you really mean "cite"?

>>> Thank goodness flawless Dave is here to correct obvious spelling
>>> errors.  I cite your postings as my evidence.

>> You've done no such thing, Marty.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>> You've merely pontificated that you've read 100% of them

> Incorrect again.

Where's the alleged evidence, Marty?

>> and found no real issues were discussed.

> Certainly not in what I've read.

You obviously haven't read very many, Marty.  Tell me, do you consider the
functionality of Java 1.2 that IBM put into 1.1.8 to be an issue?

>> That is an obvious lie.

> Glad you realize your mistake.

Illogical, Marty; noting that you lied is not an indication that I realize
any alleged mistake of mine.

>>>>>>> You have yet to present evidence to the contrary.

>>>>>> You have yet to present evidence.

>>>>> Incorrect.

>>>> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>>> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>> On the contrary, the lack of your substantiation is my substantiation,
>> Marty.

> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

On the contrary, the lack of your substantiation is my substantiation,
Marty.

> [duplication removed]

How convenient.

>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.

>>>>> Anyone who reads your postings has ample evidence to substa[n]tiate my
>>>>> claim.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.

>>> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>> On the contrary, the lack of your substantiation is my substantiation,
>> Marty.

> You've obviously not read responses to my other postings yet.

Whose responses, Marty?

> I'll give you a while to recover from the embarassment.

You're erroneously presupposing that there is any embarassment to recover
from, Marty.  That does make me wonder, however, how long you will need
to recover from the embarassment that ought to be obvious to anyone who
read the evidence that you chose to delete from your follow-up, where I
reproduced an example of me admitting an error, something that you said
I never do.  You even went so far as to call it a fact, thereby
demonstrating that you are a liar.

>>> But you're allowed to make an unsupported statement like that right?

>> You're erroneously presupposing that my statement is unsupported, Marty.

> Incorrect.  You've not supported your claim, Dave.

On the contrary, I have, Marty.

> You've merely pontificated that I'm playing an infantile game.

On the contrary, I've reproduced the evidence, Marty.

> That is a statement for which you obviously have no proof.

Why do you ignore the proof I've provided, Marty?  Too embarassing for
you?

>>> More evidence of your double standard.

>> More evidence of your illogic.

> Incorrect, as it clearly demonstrates, yet again, your double standard.

Incorrect, and it clearly demonstrates, yet again, your illogic.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                26-Oct-99 12:00:11
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 16:34:06
Subj: Re: More Blatent Tholen Lies

From: "Mike Ruskai" <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 02:22:35 -0400, Marty wrote:

[snip]

While we're on the subject of nitpicking, you might want to note for
future reference that the word is spelled "blatant".



 - Mike

Remove 'spambegone' to send e-mail.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                             26-Oct-99 16:21:12
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 16:34:06
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7v4k47$7q9$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:

Emphasis placed using brackets this time to make it more clear.

LS

> In article <7v4b7d$dd6$[e-mail]>,
>   [e-mail] wrote:
>
> Once the toothpaste is out of the tube.......
>
> 1)
> > > [dt] The word "implements" does allow for [[[[either "some" or
"all"]]]]
> > > [dt] functionality, [[[[in the absence of any other
information]]]].
>
> 2)
> [dt]> >> No, I do not.  "Implements" by itself does not eliminate any
> [dt]> >> ambiguity.  In the present case, [[[[the ambiguity]]]] is

> 3)
> [dt]> Still having reading comprehension problems, Lucien.  I just
> [dt]> finished saying that [[[[the ambiguity]]]] is resolved.

> ....it is very difficult to get it back in.
>
> You lose.
>
> Lucien S.
>
> 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]                             26-Oct-99 16:16:06
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 16:34:06
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7v4b7d$dd6$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:

Once the toothpaste is out of the tube.......

1)
> > [dt] The word "implements" does allow for either "some" or "all"
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > [dt] functionality, in the absence of any other information.
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

2)
[dt]> >> No, I do not.  "Implements" by itself does not eliminate any
[dt]> >> ambiguity.  In the present case, the ambiguity is resolved via
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

3)
[dt]> Still having reading comprehension problems, Lucien.  I just
[dt]> finished saying that the ambiguity is resolved.
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^


....it is very difficult to get it back in.

You lose.

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]                             26-Oct-99 10:15:09
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 16:34:06
Subj: New Warp v4.5 Client...

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>

Warpcast today posted notice of an upcoming announcement by IBM of an
Aurora Warp v4.5 client:

"There IS a service offering from IBM for installation and support of
an official Aurora Client to be officially announced within the next
couple of days."

Read more at:

http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4321.html

Does this mean Brad Wardell was wrong when he posted the following on
9/18/99:


"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."


Of course, that couldn't possibly be the case.  Wait, I know!  IBM must
have just CHANGED THEIR MIND a couple of weeks ago and told their
developers to crank out a client.  Man, those IBM developers in Austin
are QUICK!!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]               26-Oct-99 11:18:01
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: MS is still afraid of OS/2

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:49:12 -0400, Bennie Nelson wrote:

>After all this time, MS is still afraid of OS/2.

I have always believed that monopolist are like communist.    When they get
to certain mindset, nobody is in control - the machine (or alien, as
sociologist would call it) is in control.

How else can you explain using tanks to run over unarmed students?


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 14:17:17
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: New Warp v4.5 Client...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Warpcast today posted notice of an upcoming announcement by IBM of an
> Aurora Warp v4.5 client:
>
> "There IS a service offering from IBM for installation and support of
> an official Aurora Client to be officially announced within the next
> couple of days."

You almost had my hopes up until I read the article.

"Once again, this is a fee-based service-offering, it's NOT a shrinkwrap
CD for endusers."

> Read more at:
>
> http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4321.html
>
> Does this mean Brad Wardell was wrong when he posted the following on
> 9/18/99:
>
> "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."
>
> Of course, that couldn't possibly be the case.  Wait, I know!  IBM must
> have just CHANGED THEIR MIND a couple of weeks ago and told their
> developers to crank out a client.  Man, those IBM developers in Austin
> are QUICK!!

Or perhaps they indicated this to him in spite of their plans elsewhere
in the corporation.  Of course, that couldn't possibly be the case.
None of us know or can prove what was indicated to Wardell by IBM, but
don't let that get in the way of your attempted defamation.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 13:39:18
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: IBM Licenses SciTech Graphics Technology!

From: Brad BARCLAY <[e-mail]>

"M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn" wrote:
>
> As my ISP has completely missed your reply on their
> newsserver I see no other way than to reply to my other
> article myself and cutting and pasting your answer that I
> found through the article of Bob G. to you.

[...snip...]

> No, the newsreader argument was about technicalities (and people being
> challenged to use and install and maintain all those) only. The real reason
is
> of course that I was talking about customer-orientation/service here.

    You yourself provide ample reason to *not* provide such service:
Usenet news servers lose messages.  It's a fact of life.  It's easy for
a company to get a bad reputation for selectively or not responding to
users concerns on the open internet when such replies are lost.

    SciTech runs a closed news server, which AFAIK isn't replicated
anywhere, so you don't have to deal with message loss.  You see
everything that has ever been posted, period.  And because the topic is
highly focused on the private server (SciTech message only), you won't
miss anything important because of having to wade through dozens of
useless posts :).

    For those who are stuck with a newsreader which does not support
multiple servers, I suggest this:  continue to use your favourite reader
for the general Usenet via your ISP's server.  Then use the newsreader
built into your browser for acessing other newsservers (such as
SciTech's).

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]                                  26-Oct-99 13:51:14
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

> One question about your post: which version of Windows NT was available
> in 1992?

That would be the public betas of Windows NT 3.1, for which anyone could
sign up.



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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 17:29:11
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Roberto Alsina <[e-mail]>

In article <7v345t$9d6$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina writes:
>
> > Marty wrote:
>
> >> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > [ Dave wrote garbage, as usual ]
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?

If you can't see it, you probably won't accept the explanation.

> >>> Poor pathetic lying kook Dave. He can't even keep that Eliza tone
> >>> through the entire post.
>
> >> Is he playing an infantile game with you Roberto?  It figures.
>
> > And he is a really bad player, too.
>
> Proving that you chatted with Eliza, using your own type of proof,
> does not show that I'm a "really bad player", Roberto.

People who are not playing infantile games don't care about being
called bad players. So you *are* playing an infantile game!

--
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]                             26-Oct-99 10:42:07
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>

Columnist John Dvorak has posted a provocative analysis of Microsoft's
MVP online advocacy program which states:

"The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many of
these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks. The
concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP home page
seems to be discounts of some sort."

Read more at:

http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/opinions/0,7802,2380951,00.html

So...who were the Microsoft MVPs who hung out at COOA?????

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 10:36:11
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: More Blatent Tholen Lies

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> For those of you that appreciate a good dose of Tholen hypocrisy but
> have grown weary of length postings, I reproduce the following concise,
> self-contained, blatent lie told by Tholen which he refused to admit
> (lifted from the depths of the "Advocacy's Mosquito" thread).

For those of you that appreciate a good dose of Marty illogic but
have grown weary of length postings [sic], I call your attention to
the following concise, self-contained, blatant disregard for context.

> This is fairly conclusive evidence of a mental illness, or at the very
> least, an infantile game played by the wacky professor.

This is fairly conclusive evidence of a mental illness, or at the very
least, an infantile game played by the wacky programmer.

> This is one for the archives.  ;-)

This is one for the archives.

>>>>> Prove that I am following you around Dave.

>>>> I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.

>>> That's a blatent lie.

>> Prove it, if you think you can, Marty.

> Please stop embarassing yourself.

You're the one embarassing yourself, Marty.

> M] Prove that I am following you around Dave. <== my response to you
> D] I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.  <== your response to
> me
> M] That's a blatent lie. <== my response to you

I'm well aware of of what we both wrote, Marty.  I am also aware of the
context, which you're blatantly ignoring here.  How ironic.

> "I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty." was in response to
> "Prove that I am following you around Dave.", stated by me in this
> thread.

Which indicates that you were the first to respond to me rather than
the other way around, Marty.  That was the context of the discussion.
You commented on my response to Roberto Alsina.

> Your failure to admit a mistake this blatent shocked even me and tells
> me everything further I need to know about your character and your brand
> of "logic".

There is no mistake on my part, Marty.  Your failure to recognize the
context shocked even me and tells everything further I need to know about
your character and your brand of "logic".

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 10:39:27
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> Mike Timbol wrote:

>>>> I wrote:

>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>>>> Read the rest of the article, Mike.

>>>>>>>> I did, Dave.

>>>>>>> You said you couldn't find it, Mike.  Do make up your mind.

>>>>>> Dave, try and understand the concept that things change with time.

>>>>> What took so long, Mike?

>>>> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
>>>> that you were referencing.  Since that was the first time you provided
>>>> anything that could be searched on, that was the first time I was able
>>>> to find the article you were referring to.

>>> Hm... sounds to me like Dave is playing another infantile game with you
>>> Mike.

>> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.

> How predictable.

Especially when you keep making the same mistake over and over, Marty.

>> In reality, it's Mike Timbol who is playing the game.

> Evidence, please.

Reading comprehension problems, Marty?  The evidence is in the following
sentence.

>> Notice his latest lie.  Interesting that you didn't bother to comment on
it.

> Perhaps because said "lie" is non-existent.

Perhaps not, Marty.  Read the evidence.  After all, you claim to have
checked every post I've made in order to determine whether I've ever
commented on the issue.

>>> But how it sounds to me is irrelevant.

>> Indeed.  So why did you bother to comment, Marty?

> Sarcasm shooting right over your head as usual.  I'm not surprised.

Typical feeble excuse.

>> Still playing your "infantile game"?

> The one you invented you mean?

You're erroneously presupposing that I invented an "infantile game",
Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          26-Oct-99 19:26:11
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Bennie Nelson
>Bad example, Mike.  This is simply applying the mathematical law: if A > B,
>and B > C, then A > C.  There's no implication here: it's the law.

hahahahahah!!!! It's Bennie "I want to be Tholen, my hero, when I grow
up" Nelson -- the person who believes that "Tholen's detractors are
emotionally blocked" and "unskilled at logic". He's trying to emulate
a mentally ill person!

This is really sad, even for OS/2 Advocates. At least, Amiga True
Believers weren't quite this laughable. No wonder why no one takes
OS/2 Advocacy seriously.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          26-Oct-99 19:35:08
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>
>I don't recall if you posted a reply to the parody lyrics derived
>from "American Pie".  Parody, of course, can be used for comical effect
>or ridicule.  Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and
>you replied to that one.  Based upon what I've read in your subsequent
>posts, it seems that you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being
>ridicule rather than humorous.
>
>When I read Marty's posts originally, it seemed to me that he was
>making an attempt at being funny, at your expense, of course, rather
>than ridiculing you.  Given the antipathy Marty has expressed towards
>you, I'm not surprised that you did not see it the same way I did.  My
>post was not intended to be critical of you or Marty.  One of my
>intentions for posting was to see if Marty would admit what his motives
>were in posting the parodies: did he intend them to be humorous or for
>ridicule.

Uh, Bennie, a guy by the name of "Bobo" already did your vaudeville
routine in this newsgroup, before getting laughed out of here for
being the naive mentally-ill-hero defender whom he became by his own
words and deeds here. After your pathetically dumb "Tholen detractors
are unskilled at logic" and "are emotionally blocked" foolishness, I
would think that you wouldn't be quite so stupid that you'd attempt to
run your inept interference for Tholen-the-lunatic again.

Obviously, you *are* that stupid.

But if you're going to be unbearably boring and dumb, could you at
least be original instead of serving up the same brainless tripe that
Bobo already did?

That would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                26-Oct-99 14:29:25
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Mike Ruskai" <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:42:15 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:

>Columnist John Dvorak has posted a provocative analysis of Microsoft's
>MVP online advocacy program which states:
>
>"The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many of
>these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks. The
>concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP home page
>seems to be discounts of some sort."
>
>Read more at:
>
>http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/opinions/0,7802,2380951,00.html
>
>So...who were the Microsoft MVPs who hung out at COOA?????

Well, take a look at who's no longer posting, now that the MVP program is
over.  Steven Den Beste is one, and I don't think it's a mystery to anyone
here that he was working for MS, directly or indirectly.



 - Mike

Remove 'spambegone' to send e-mail.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                          26-Oct-99 13:49:06
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: MS is still afraid of OS/2

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

As I have noted in this NG, one of my job assignments is NT Server
administrator.
Sometimes I have to look up information on or download patches from MS'
website.
Interestingly, I have been unable to get information from that site's
KnowledgeBase
while using Communicator for OS/2.  Whenever I try to select a page, the
following
is displayed:


 [Beginning of quote from MS page]
       The page cannot be found

  The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed,
or is
  temporarily unavailable.

  Please try the following:

  If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is
spelled
  correctly.
  Open the Microsoft Product Support Services home page, and then look for
links
  to the information you want.
  Click the  Back button in your browser to try another link.
  Click Support Home to go to Microsoft Product Support Services.

  HTTP 404 - File not found
  Product Support Services
 [End of quote]

So, as a test, I used the "emulate windows" switch in the PREFS.JS file and
went to
the MS website.  For those who don't know what that means, putting the
following
line in the appropriate PREFS.JS file will cause Communicator for OS/2 to
report
itself as a Windows 95 version instead.

user_pref("os2.emulate.windows", true);

This is covered in the Release Notes page.  I tried this and as long as the
emulate.windows switch is "true", I had no trouble getting the information
from
MS' website.  I took the line out and the MS site displayed the text shown
above.
So, the MS site lies.  The page could be found, they just wouldn't send it if
they could detect that the machine running is OS/2.

After all this time, MS is still afraid of OS/2.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          26-Oct-99 13:52:18
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Columnist John Dvorak has posted a provocative analysis of Microsoft's
> MVP online advocacy program which states:
>
> "The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many of
> these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks. The
> concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP home page
> seems to be discounts of some sort."
>
> Read more at:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/opinions/0,7802,2380951,00.html
>
> So...who were the Microsoft MVPs who hung out at COOA?????

That's a very good question, and I believe we may have found the
best answer to the oft asked "Why are you, fill in with the name of
a Windows user who posts in c.o.o.a, posting in this NG?"

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          26-Oct-99 14:18:22
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Bennie Nelson writes:
>
> >>> Marty wrote:
>
> >>>> Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> I wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Read the rest of the article, Mike.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I did, Dave.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You said you couldn't find it, Mike.  Do make up your mind.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Dave, try and understand the concept that things change with time.
>
> >>>>>>>> What took so long, Mike?
>
> >>>>>>> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
> >>>>>>> that you were referencing.  Since that was the first time you
provided
> >>>>>>> anything that could be searched on, that was the first time I was
able
> >>>>>>> to find the article you were referring to.
>
> >>>>>> Hm... sounds to me like Dave is playing another infantile game with
you
> >>>>>> Mike.
>
> >>>>> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.
>
> >>>> How predictable.
>
> >>>>> In reality, it's Mike Timbol who is playing the game.
>
> >>>> Evidence, please.
>
> >>>>> Notice his latest lie.  Interesting that you didn't bother to comment
on it.
>
> >>>> Perhaps because said "lie" is non-existent.
>
> >>>>>> But how it sounds to me is irrelevant.
>
> >>>>> Indeed.  So why did you bother to comment, Marty?
>
> >>>> Sarcasm shooting right over your head as usual.  I'm not surprised.
>
> >>> Marty,
> >>> A number of posts you've made have contained humorous moments.
>
> >> What may seem humorous to a bystander won't necessarily be humorous to
> >> the person who is the target of abuse.
>
> >>> Dave did not seem to recognize them as such, or chose to interpret
> >>> some or all of them without the humorous ingredients.
>
> >> I've chosen to interpret the ones used to abuse me as abuse.
>
> >>> Your "American Pie" was especially good, I thought.
>
> >> Where did I indicate any interpretation of that so-called "humor"?
>
> > I don't recall if you posted a reply to the parody lyrics derived
> > from "American Pie".
>
> What were the lyrics?

                    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....

It took a while, but I found them.  The URL is:

http://x38.deja.com/[S0=90688c2f1898753]/getdoc.xp?AN=538722843.2&CONTEXT=94096
0691.1591803974&hitnum=1

>
> > Parody, of course, can be used for comical effect or ridicule.
>
> Part of Marty's "infantile game".

I'd looked at his use of parody as attempts to inject some humor into the
discussion.  Of course, it was all at your expense.  I do not criticize
you for taking offense even though I would not have if I was the target.

>
> > Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and you replied
> > to that one.
>
> Not line by line, as Marty alleged.

Although I have not read every post in the threads, I have not seen any
post that shows you answering any of the parodies line by line.  If you
had, it would be simple for Marty to supply a DEJA URL for the post.

>
> > Based upon what I've read in your subsequent posts, it seems that
> > you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being ridicule rather
> > than humorous.
>
> That's the correct interpretation.

The question I would like Marty to answer is whether he intended to
be offensive or merely humorous.  Since you've taken offense at his
words, for you there is no humor, regardless of what he intended.

>
> > When I read Marty's posts originally, it seemed to me that he was
> > making an attempt at being funny, at your expense, of course, rather
> > than ridiculing you.
>
> The key words here are "at your expense".  That's abuse.

Since you have found Marty's attempts at being humorous to be
offensive, you view it that way.  If Marty merely meant to be
humorous, it would be appropriate for him to step up and
acknowledge that fact.

>
> > Given the antipathy Marty has expressed towards you, I'm not
> > surprised that you did not see it the same way I did.  My
> > post was not intended to be critical of you or Marty.
>
> Too bad, as I wish some people would discourage Marty from polluting
> this newsgroup with his "infantile game".  He's not accomplishing
> anything useful.

If he meant to ridicule you, then I agree that is not accomplishing
anything useful.

>
> > One of my intentions for posting was to see if Marty would admit what
> > his motives were in posting the parodies: did he intend them to be
> > humorous or for ridicule.
>
> But Marty is a proven liar, thus you would have to take his written
> response with a grain of salt.

Marty has posted many useful articles in this and other newsgroups.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 11:42:25
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
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.

>>>>>>> Seeing things that aren't there again, David?  Your evidence did not
>>>>>>> support your claim.

>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>> Aren't you certain?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Using a pseudonym, Dave?  How ironic.

>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> Why do you say that?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>> Still having reading
>>>>>>>> comprehension problems, Eric?

>>>>>>> Illogical.

>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>> What makes you believe that I believe that?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Eliza?  Hah!  I would appreciate it if you would continue.

>> What makes you believe that?

> Can you elaborate on that?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, 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.

>>>>>>> See what I mean?

>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> Non sequitur.

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
>>> try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
>>> you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

> Are you sure that is the real reason?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Gerben's post shows that you were the winner:

>>>>>>>> Gerben's post shows that Wayne Strang is the winner.

>>>>>>> Incorrect.

>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> Non sequitur.

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
>>> try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
>>> you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

> Are you positive that is the real reason?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>> See the message
>>>>>>>> referenced above.

>>>>>>> Typical circular reasoning.  Ineffective.

>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>> What makes you believe that I believe that?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
>>> try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
>>> you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

>> What makes you believe that?

> I would appreciate it if you would continue.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,

>>>>>>> Incorrect.

>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> Non sequitur.

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
>>> try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
>>> you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

> Are you certain that this is the real reason?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>> given that I explained why there is nothing illogical about
>>>>>>>> it,

>>>>>>> Your explanation was illogical.

>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>> What makes you believe that I believe that?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
>>> try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
>>> you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

>> What makes you believe that?

> What makes you believe what makes I believe this?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>> while you only make the claim with offering any explanation.

>>>>>>> I have already explained it.  Your failure to comprehend the
explanation
>>>>>>> is predictable, David.

>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>> Aren't you certain?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
>>> try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
>>> you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> Maybe my life that I am going through all this have something to do with
this.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>> given that the burden of proof is yours.

>>>>>>>>>> It's already been proven.

>>>>>>>>> Evidence, please.

>>>>>>>> See the referenced message above.

>>>>>>> Typical circular reasoning.  Ineffective.

>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>> What makes you believe that I believe that?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
>>> try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
>>> you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

>> What makes you believe that?

> Go on, don't be afraid.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>> The burden to read the proof is yours, Eric.

>>>>>>>>> Argument by assertion again, Dave?

>>>>>>>> Where is the alleged assertion, Eric?

>>>>>>> How ironic.

>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> Non sequitur.

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
>>> try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
>>> you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

> Are you absolutely sure that is the real reason?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> How predictable.

>>>>>>>> How illogical to refer to a nonexistent assertion.

>>>>>>> You erroneously presuppose a that I made a reference to a nonexisting
>>>>>>> assertion.

>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> Non sequitur.

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
>>> try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
>>> you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

> Are you sure that is the real reason?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, 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.

>>>>>>>>> Illogical.

>>>>>>>> Yet another example of a claim lacking explanation.

>>>>>>> Illogical.

>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>> What makes you believe that I believe that?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
>>> try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
>>> you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

>> What makes you believe that?

> I need a little more detail please.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>>> Irrelevant.

>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>> What makes you believe that I believe that?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
>>> try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
>>> you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

>> What makes you believe that?

> You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

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

>>>>>>>>>> I'm puzzled by your fascination with that statement, Eric.

>>>>>>>>> What puzzles you is irrelevant.

>>>>>>>> Incorrect.

>>>>>>> Evidence, please.

>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>> I see you weren't able to provide any evidence to support your erroneous
>>>>> claim.  Predictable.

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
>>> try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
>>> you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> What you can prove is relevant.

>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.

>>>>>>> Evidence, please.

>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>> I see you weren't able to provide any evidence to support your erroneous
>>>>> claim.  Predictable.

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your attitude at the end of the session was wholly unacceptable.  Please
>>> try to come back next time with a willingness to speak more freely.  If
>>> you continue to refuse to talk openly, there is little I can do to help!

>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, 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?

>>>>>>>>> The tholenbot never approves phrases.

>>>>>>>> Then why don't you quote yourself at the end of your postings?

>>>>>>> [Ed: Seems reasonable enough.]

>>>>>> Why not select some other quotations of yours?

>>>>> Why not select that one?

>>>> It doesn't stand out.

>>> Why do you say it doesn't stand out?

>> You don't approve phrases either.

> Is it because of my sex life that I am going through all this that you say
> I do not approve phrases either?

Don't ask me.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          26-Oct-99 19:14:21
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Marty <[e-mail]>
>Dave Tholen wrote:
>>
>> Marty writes:
>>
>> >> You never proved that I am a liar, Marty.  However, I did prove that
>> >> you are a liar when you wrote:
>> >>
>> >> M] The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is evidence
>> >> M] of your own infantile game
>> >>
>> >> I reproduced an admission of being wrong,
>>
>> > I'm sorry Dave, but I missed it.
>>
>> Yet another example of your reading comprehension problem.
>
>My you are a jackass.

Um, Marty, you do realize that, in arguing with Ian Tholen, you are in
fact arguing with a mentally ill person whose grasp of reality is so
weak that he can't be expected to even exhibit a modicum of common
sense?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             26-Oct-99 11:50:19
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: New Warp v4.5 Client...

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Warpcast today posted notice of an upcoming announcement by IBM of an
> > Aurora Warp v4.5 client:
> >
> > "There IS a service offering from IBM for installation and support of
> > an official Aurora Client to be officially announced within the next
> > couple of days."
>
> You almost had my hopes up until I read the article.
>
> "Once again, this is a fee-based service-offering, it's NOT a shrinkwrap
> CD for endusers."
>
> > Read more at:
> >
> > http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4321.html
> >
> > Does this mean Brad Wardell was wrong when he posted the following on
> > 9/18/99:
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > Of course, that couldn't possibly be the case.  Wait, I know!  IBM must
> > have just CHANGED THEIR MIND a couple of weeks ago and told their
> > developers to crank out a client.  Man, those IBM developers in Austin
> > are QUICK!!
>
> Or perhaps they indicated this to him in spite of their plans elsewhere
> in the corporation.  Of course, that couldn't possibly be the case.
> None of us know or can prove what was indicated to Wardell by IBM, but
> don't let that get in the way of your attempted defamation.
>
Yes, I guess we will never know WHO or WHAT was doing all of that
indicating.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 11:44:07
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:01
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes [using a pseudonym again]:

>> Marty writes:

>>> Joe Malloy wrote:

>>>> Sheesh! Stupid <[e-mail]> obviously used something akin
to
>>>> an Eliza program and tholened:

>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>> But Tholen, you forgot the most basic question of all: Why do you respond
>>>> like Eliza?

>>> Because he is engaging in an infantile game.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm substantiating a claim.

> What alleged claim were you allegedly substantiating?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> How hypocritical.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm engagin in an "infantile game",
>> Marty.

> Irrelevant, given that he correctly realized that you were engagin*g* in
> an infantile game.

What makes you believe that?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 08:02:18
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: Re: IBM Licenses SciTech Graphics Technology!

From: [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

As my ISP has completely missed your reply on their
newsserver I see no other way than to reply to my other
article myself and cutting and pasting your answer that I
found through the article of Bob G. to you.

>> [e-mail] (Kendall Bennett) wrote:

>> You have completely lost me on this one. You message seems
>> to indicate that I should provide some other mechanism for users
>> to access our newsgroup, for brain dead news readers like ProNew?
>> That is *why* we have  our web/news gateway. You can read and post
>> news to our newsgroups directly from our web site.

Eh, Pronews a "brain-dead " newsreader? That statement won't make
you liked <g> here. Pronews in the original release did not have a more
servers as an option. The product is available in very stable beta's which
do have that though. Those beta's never became a product, but work well.

No, the newsreader argument was about technicalities (and people being
challenged to use and install and maintain all those) only. The real reason is
of course that I was talking about customer-orientation/service here.

I was trying to show you that there are easy ways for you to be at much bigger
help to the users of your product by simply watching Deja for your name, the
name
of the company and your products turn up. You can then help by providing an
URL
to the correct solution on your webpages (or in your database). You can do so
by e-
mail and make an outstanding impression or by replying to the newsgroup to
show all
people there that you care. You would break away from the isolation of  your
company's
help-system on your own systems only. You might become a part of the OS/2
community
by coming to these newsgroups and providing help here also. As this is the
place where
people tend to look and post if they have an OS/2 problem.

Now about browsing the website portal into your databases and support-system.
You
may not be aware that we here in Europe (and perhaps some other places in the
world)
do not live under the ruling in the USA forcing your phone-companies to
provide local ac-
cess for a fixed monthly fee only. We have to pay for every second we are
online through
a phone-company. That is for instance reason enough for most people to limit
their time on-
line to the bare minimum possible. No searching for other newsgroups, no
continuous reading
of all kind of newsgroups, no extensive browsing of databases and websites for
tech support.

Just my .. cents (left over after paying the phone bills <g>). As an attempt
to add more
possibilities to the ways your users can get information about and help for
your products.

Only coming to the OS/2 groups asking for beta-testers and promoting is not a
polite thing to do.

Regards from Leeuwarden
Peter van Dobben de Bruijn
---
usethenet.at.the-net-4u.com (.at. becomes @)
----

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 08:02:17
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: Re: IBM Licenses SciTech Graphics Technology!

From: [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

> Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> You have completely lost me on this one. You message seems to indicate
>> that I should provide some other mechanism for users to access our
>> newsgroup, for brain dead news readers like ProNew? That is *why* we
>> have  our web/news gateway. You can read and post news to our
>> newsgroups directly from our web site.

> Kendall, you have to consider the source to which you wrote the above
> reply. It was from a certifiable moron.

>> Did I miss something here?

> The court hearing where he was found incompetent to breath without a
> headset constantly repeating, "Breathe in. Breathe out." --

Hmmm .... the newsserver of my ISP completely missed the reply of
Kendall. One other reason to install a monitoring feature at Deja to find
everything about your product popping up whereever if you are here to
promot your business. Thanks Bob for pointing me to this reply of Kendall.

Now about the gist of your message. I started to like your replies in that
other long thread. Got the feeling that you at least have technical expe-
rience on which you base your remarks. However, Kendall replying to me
and you therefore saying to him that I am "a certifiable moron" may lead to
some other conclusion about the way you 'reason". As some person who you
have dealt with in the past would ask: "On what do you base your assumption?".

Regards from Leeuwarden
Peter van Dobben de Bruijn
---
usethenet.at.the-net-4u.com (.at. becomes @)
----

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 12:21:19
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Bennie Nelson writes:

> Marty wrote:

>> Dave Tholen wrote:

>>> Marty writes:

>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:

>>>>> I wrote:

>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>>>>> Read the rest of the article, Mike.

>>>>>>>>> I did, Dave.

>>>>>>>> You said you couldn't find it, Mike.  Do make up your mind.

>>>>>>> Dave, try and understand the concept that things change with time.

>>>>>> What took so long, Mike?

>>>>> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
>>>>> that you were referencing.  Since that was the first time you provided
>>>>> anything that could be searched on, that was the first time I was able
>>>>> to find the article you were referring to.

>>>> Hm... sounds to me like Dave is playing another infantile game with you
>>>> Mike.

>>> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.

>> How predictable.

>>> In reality, it's Mike Timbol who is playing the game.

>> Evidence, please.

>>> Notice his latest lie.  Interesting that you didn't bother to comment on
it.

>> Perhaps because said "lie" is non-existent.

>>>> But how it sounds to me is irrelevant.

>>> Indeed.  So why did you bother to comment, Marty?

>> Sarcasm shooting right over your head as usual.  I'm not surprised.

> Marty,
> A number of posts you've made have contained humorous moments.

What may seem humorous to a bystander won't necessarily be humorous to
the person who is the target of abuse.

> Dave did not seem to recognize them as such, or chose to interpret
> some or all of them without the humorous ingredients.

I've chosen to interpret the ones used to abuse me as abuse.

> Your "American Pie" was especially good, I thought.

Where did I indicate any interpretation of that so-called "humor"?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             26-Oct-99 12:18:21
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7v4214$56f$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >> The word "implements" does allow for either "some" or "all"
> >> functionality, in the absence of any other information.
>
> > Glad you agree with me.
>
> The problem is that there is no absence of other information in the
> present case, Lucien.

Irrelevant. Reread your statement, which defines the semantics of the
situation exactly:

[dt] The word "implements" does allow for either "some" or "all"
[dt] functionality, in the absence of any other information.

> >> Thus the use of the word "prevent" eliminates any
> >> alleged ambiguity.
>
> > I think you mean "implements" here.
>
> No, I do not.  "Implements" by itself does not eliminate any
ambiguity.
> In the present case, the ambiguity is resolved via the logical

Glad you agree with me that there is an ambiguity.

Good work proving my claim, thanks.

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]                                   26-Oct-99 13:35:23
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: [e-mail] (Tim Smith)

Mike Ruskai <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Well, take a look at who's no longer posting, now that the MVP program is
>over.  Steven Den Beste is one, and I don't think it's a mystery to anyone
>here that he was working for MS, directly or indirectly.

Hmmm...well known BSD advocate Tim Martin hasn't posted in a while...

--
--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]                             26-Oct-99 11:41:22
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: Re: SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget

From: [e-mail] (Donal K. Fellows)

In article <[e-mail]>,
Jim Polaski <[e-mail]> wrote:
> [e-mail] (Eric Bennett) wrote:
>> SPA Lobbies to Reduce DOJ Budget
>> EBNet Newswire
>>
>> Boston, MA.  October 20, 1999.  The Software Pirates of America (SPA)
                                                ^^^^^^^
[...]
> So, if this article is true, the SPA is full of horse manure.

YHBT.  Hook, line and sinker.  HAND!

Donal (Nice parody, Eric!  Goodonya!)
--
Donal K. Fellows    http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/
[e-mail]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
   be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
   borders.  -- David Parsons  <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Department of Computer Science, University of Man
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 15:38:27
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: I am compelled to concede - honestly.

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

Good point.  As much as Microsoft deserves the occasional defense, there is
no way Microsoft deserves any for this situation.  I genuinely would
question Microsoft on that, or even contact them politely inquiring the
issue.

Case in point:  Microsoft apparently prohibits IE v2 users from their
website (main page or any page underneath it).  When I discovered that, I
gave them a remarkably polite letter to them about that issue.  (trust me, I
was fuming.  Their own product not working on their own site!...)  Never got
a response, and IE v2 users still can't get onto their web site!!  A
coworker told me that it was MS's way of wanting people to get IE4 or
whatever but I said "If I can't get on to their page, how the hell do I
upgrade?"  Since Netscape browser, tacky as it is, works on MS's site, many
people would become Netscape converts rather than get netscape and then go
get IE.  That's ridiculous.  (personally, I prefer IE and I'm not going to
spend all day explaining the little bits and pieces which make IE
preferable, but Netscape isn't a total pile of guppie dung either.  I can
respect that much!)

You thought you'd never hear me agree with any OS/2 user on that, I suspect?

Microsoft might reply with "You're an OS/2 user so why should you bother
with [this portion] of our site?"  On the other hand, the internet is
supposed to be for free exchange of information - which means Microsoft
still pulled a wrong.

I genuinely am beginning to wonder about them again...  capitalism can only
go so far.

Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> As I have noted in this NG, one of my job assignments is NT Server
administrator.
> Sometimes I have to look up information on or download patches from MS'
website.
> Interestingly, I have been unable to get information from that site's
KnowledgeBase
> while using Communicator for OS/2.  Whenever I try to select a page, the
following
> is displayed:
>
>
>  [Beginning of quote from MS page]
>        The page cannot be found
>
>   The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name
changed, or is
>   temporarily unavailable.
>
>   Please try the following:
>
>   If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is
spelled
>   correctly.
>   Open the Microsoft Product Support Services home page, and then look for
links
>   to the information you want.
>   Click the  Back button in your browser to try another link.
>   Click Support Home to go to Microsoft Product Support Services.
>
>   HTTP 404 - File not found
>   Product Support Services
>  [End of quote]
>
> So, as a test, I used the "emulate windows" switch in the PREFS.JS file
and went to
> the MS website.  For those who don't know what that means, putting the
following
> line in the appropriate PREFS.JS file will cause Communicator for OS/2 to
report
> itself as a Windows 95 version instead.
>
> user_pref("os2.emulate.windows", true);
>
> This is covered in the Release Notes page.  I tried this and as long as
the
> emulate.windows switch is "true", I had no trouble getting the information
from
> MS' website.  I took the line out and the MS site displayed the text shown
above.
> So, the MS site lies.  The page could be found, they just wouldn't send it
if
> they could detect that the machine running is OS/2.
>
> After all this time, MS is still afraid of OS/2.
>
> Regards,
> Bennie Nelson


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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            26-Oct-99 21:37:23
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:35:46, [e-mail] (Tim Smith) wrote:

> Mike Ruskai <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >Well, take a look at who's no longer posting, now that the MVP program is
> >over.  Steven Den Beste is one, and I don't think it's a mystery to anyone
> >here that he was working for MS, directly or indirectly.
>
> Hmmm...well known BSD advocate Tim Martin hasn't posted in a while...
>
He's not well at the moment, apparently.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

(Heh! This sig is getting better by the minute.)

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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            26-Oct-99 21:37:24
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: Re: More Blatent Tholen Lies

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:36:32, Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Bennie Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Marty,
> >
> > Your reply to my post repeats the same question several times, so I will
> > provide one answer here at the front of this post.
>
> Thank you.  That is the style of a normal, well adjusted, relaxed
> individual.
>
> > I have read SOME but not ALL of the thread.  That is not the point.  Your
> > article to which I responded was framed as a "self-contained" post that
> > you claimed was "one for the archives."
>
> Correct.
>
> > So, I simply examined your "ONE" for the archives and found it to be
lacking.
> > It simply did not make the point you were trying to make.  You've tacitly
> > admitted that by repeatedly asking if I have read the thread.
>
> I asked if you've looked at it.  However, point taken.  The archived
> version should have 2 more levels of back quotation to be completely
> self-contained.
>
> > In another thread you helped me to make a point that I admitted I had
> > not done well in making, and I thanked you sincerely for that.  In this
> > thread, I was trying to return the favor.
>
> And I thank you.
>
It's not funny when you're being so nice to each other. Whatever
happened to godd ole' honest insults and name calling?

I'm really beginning to regret the end of the MVP-funding...

(For the record: I was being ironically sarcastic - I've been
practicing)

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          26-Oct-99 20:52:22
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Ian Tholen
>No song lyrics were present.

Incorrect, dork. See below.

>Why don't you just let it be?

Now, he's doing Beatles tunes. Hmmmmm. Why not:

"A Day in the Life (of a lunatic)"

I read the newsgroup here, oh boy.
about a kooky man and games he played.
And though his life is rather sad,
well I just had to laugh -- I saw his photograph (on his "Professional
Home page").

He blew his mind out counting stars.
He didn't notice that nobody cared.
A crowd of people disappeared.
They'd seen his crap before.
They all were really bored.
All he got were countless snores.

At IBM today, oh boy.
For desktop clients they had lost the war.
A crowd of users walked away.
But I just had to look.
at the remaining kook.

We love to tear him down.

Woke up, fell out of bed.
Must have landed on his head.
Found his PC there and booted up
and logging in, he noticed COOA.
He posted bloat and pasted crap,
while being mocked by Joe M. and J. Glatt.
Claimed his "queer" remark was just "a joke"
but for what he spoke, he had to see the dean.

I read the newsgroup here, oh boy.
A Tholen asshole still is there for sure.
And though his mind is rather small,
His posts are countless drool.
Now we know how many posts it takes for dejanews to scroll.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 13:35:17
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: (1/2) 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?

>>>>>>> I wasn't attributing his quote to you.

>>>>>> Then why did you put my name after his, Marty?

>>>>> To note that you quoted him.  This is a key point that you
>>>>> apparently missed.

>>>> That is a key point whose logic you haven't explained.

>>> The point being that you were the one who quote him umpteen times in the
>>> same posting.

>> How does that justify adding my name after his?

> To demonstrate that fact.

Why do you need to do that, Marty?

> Merely quoting him, leaving off your attribution does not show that you
> quoted his quote.

Why do you need to do that, Marty?

> This seems lost on you.

On the contrary, what isn't clear is your motivation.  Unless, of course,
it's all part of your "infantile game".

>>> This seems lost on you.

>> You have yet to explain your reasoning, so there is nothing to be lost
>> on me, Marty.

> See above.

The above doesn't explain your reasoning, Marty.  All it explains is
your action.

>>> Perhaps you should take another look at the message in question.

>> Perhaps you should try to explain your reasoning, Marty.

> Perhaps you should try comprehending it.

I can't comprehend what isn't there to comprehend, Marty.

>>>>>>> I was quoting your act of quoting him.

>>>>>> You have the direct quotation, Marty, so no indirect quotation is
>>>>>> necessary.

>>>>>>> You'll note that I left the attribution to him intact.

>>>>>> And I noted that you added an unnecessary one.

>>>>> It was quite necessary.

>>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

>>> See above.

>> The above doesn't explain your reasoning, Marty.

> If it didn't before, it does now.

Incorrect, Marty.  All it explains is your action.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "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.

>>>>>> Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?

>>>>> Still erroneously asking irrelevant questions Dave?

>>>> Nothing irrelevant about it, Marty.

>>> No reading comprehension problems were demonstrated on my part, Dave.

>> Incorrect, given that I didn't indicate any agreement, Marty.

> Ok then, why have you asked me that question using my words then Dave?

In hopes of getting an answer from you, Marty.  I'm still waiting for
one.

> What was your purpose in doing so?

In hopes of getting an answer from you, Marty.  I'm still waiting for
one.

> What kind of answer were you expecting?

A truthful one, Marty.

> What point would such an answer prove?

Why not answer the question and find out, Marty?  Is it because you
don't like either possibility?

>>>>>> I didn't indicate any agreement.

>>>>> You certainly did.

>>>> Where, allegedly?

>>> See below.

>> Below doesn't contain any evidence of agreement in the statement above,
>> Marty.

> Ok then, why have you asked me that question using my words then Dave?

In hopes of getting an answer from you, Marty.  I'm still waiting for
one.

> What was your purpose in doing so?

In hopes of getting an answer from you, Marty.  I'm still waiting for
one.

> What kind of answer were you expecting?

A truthful one, Marty.

> What point would such an answer prove?

Why not answer the question and find out, Marty?  Is it because you
don't like either possibility?

>>>>> By using my argument against me, you are inherently agreeing with it.

>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that the quotation represents an
argument.
>>>> Rather, it represents a question.

>>> A question, with a built-in implied answer.

>> I implied no answer, Marty.

> I implied the answer when I asked the question.

Irrelevant to this instance, Marty, given that I did not imply any
answer when I asked the question using your words.

> You quoted me.

You words exactly represented the question I wanted to ask, Marty.

> Does that implication suddenly become null and void because you
> reproduced my quote?  No.

That I quoted you is not an implication, Marty, but a rather obvious
fact.

>> You may have inferred one, but I did not imply one.

> I implied the answer when I asked the question.

Irrelevant to this instance, Marty, given that I did not imply any
answer when I asked the question using your words.

> You quoted me.

You words exactly represented the question I wanted to ask, Marty.

> Does that implication suddenly become null and void because you
> reproduced my quote?  No.

That I quoted you is not an implication, Marty, but a rather obvious
fact.

>> Yet another person who does not understand the difference between infer
>> and imply.

> How presumptious of you to assume so.

No assumption was necessary, Marty, given that I have your actual usage
to which I can refer.

> Also quite incorrect.

Balderdash, Marty, given that you used the word incorrectly above.

>>> As I stated, you already know my position on the matter

>> I don't know your answer to the question I asked (using your words).

> My answer to "Is this something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed
> individual would do?" with regards to your action of repeating the
> quotation umpteen times in the same post would be a resounding "No."

Irrelevant, Marty.  I wasn't asking what you thought about my action.
I was asking what you thought about your action.  I see you still
haven't answered my question.

>>> and therefore, the direction the question was going.

>> Of course I know the direction of my question.  You do not.

> Care to share, or is the embarassment too much for you?

There is no embarassment on my part, Marty.  If you really want to
know the direction, answer the question and you'll see the direction.

>>> Your use of the same question implies your agreements to the
>>> tenants and circumstances under which it was asked.

>> Incorrect.  I implied no agreements to the tenants and circumstances.

> Other than quoting me, that is.

That's not an indication of any agreement, Marty.

> If you wanted to ask the question using just my words, then why did
> you attach the attribution?

To identify them as your words, Marty.

> That's quite illogical.

What's allegedly illogical about assigning appropriate attribution,
Marty?

>> You may have inferred them, but I did not imply them.

> Incorrect.

On what basis do you make that erroneous claim, Marty?

>> Yet another person who does not understand the difference between
>> infer and imply.

> Yet another time you embarass yourself.

Illogical, Marty, given that you used the word incorrectly once again,
thus the embarassment is all yours.

>>>>> Why would you write something with which you disagreed?

>>>> I haven't disagreed with it either, Marty.  I was asking a question,
>>>> using your text.

>>> No Dave.

>> On the contrary, I was asking a question, Marty, using your text.

> And attaching an attribution?

Why not?  It's a quotation.

> Illogical.

What's allegedly illogical about assigning appropriate attribution,
Marty?

> If the words came from you and your own ideas, then why attach the
> attribution?

The key word here is "if".  The words did not come from me.  They came
from you.

> If they had my ideas behind them, then the attribution is appropriate.

They had your words behind them, which makes the attribution appropriate.

>>> You were quoting me, hence the attribution.

>> And that quotation is a question, which I was asking of you.

> Then why attach an attribution?

To identify them as your words, Marty.

> Why not just ask the question?

You might accuse me of plagarism, Marty.

>>> If you were asking a question using my text, you'd have left off the
>>> attribution.

>> Why should I leave off the attribution from a quotation, Marty?

> Are they your words with your ideas as you claim?

They're your words, Marty.

> If so, no attribution is necessary and the presence of one is misleading.

The key word here is "if".

>>> But don't let facts get in the way

>> I'm not, Marty.  Rather, you are.

> You never let the facts get in your way Dave.

Facts assist me, Marty, not impede me.

> You pretend they don't even exist.

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>>> of your irrelevant argument.

>> On what basis do you call my argument irrelevant, Marty?

> On the basis that you are a proven liar and can be dismissed.

How ironic, coming from a proven liar:

M] The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is
M] evidence of your own infantile game

I reproduced an example where I admitted being wrong, Marty, thus your
alleged "fact" is no fact at all.  Furthermore, the fact that you were
unaware of my evidence, proves that you were not familiar with everything
I have posted, despite the claim you made about me never addressing
issues.  Two examples of you lying with one statement!

> Couple that with the fact that it is nothing but a deflection on the
> point that you reissued the same quote umpteen times in the same
> posting, and that this action is not that of a normal, well adjusted,
> relaxed individual.

Is your action "that of a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual",
Marty?  I'm still waiting for an answer.

>>>>>> I was asking a question using your text for the question.

>>>>> And I was making the statement you made in quoting you.

>>>> For what purpose, Marty?

> For the purpose of demonstrating your hypocricy.

Impossible, given that there is no such word.

> Mission accomplished.

Impossible, given that there is no such word.

>>>>> You questioned your own quote as to whether it was something a normal,
well
>>>>> adjusted, relaxed individual would do.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.  I was questioning your reuse of the quotation.

>>> Now you change the subject.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  It's the same subject I've been talking about ever since
>> I asked the question.

> Which is not akin to what I was originally discussing which you tried to
> counter.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> Which is evidence of your infantile game to deflect the point
> to something which suits you better.

You're erroneously presupposing that my question is not akin to what you
were originally discussing, Marty.

>>> How convenient.

>> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of a changed subject.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of pontification.

>>> We were referring to the line where you "used [my] words to ask [me] a
>>> question",

>> And I still am, Marty.

> Which means you are still incorrect

Illogical, Marty.  The fact that I'm still referring to a line doesn't
mean I'm still incorrect.

> and persuing an irrelevant topic.

You brought it up, Marty, so you can blame yourself if you think it's
irrelevant now.

>>> not my quoting your quote.

>> You still haven't explain why you would need to make such an indirect
>> quotation, Marty.

> Yes I have.

Not logically, Marty.

> Once again:  to note that it was <you> who quoted him umpteen times
> in the same posting and that this is not something that a normal, well
> adjusted, relaxed individual would do.

Is your action "that of a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual",
Marty?  I'm still waiting for an answer.

Furthermore, that doesn't explain why you would need to make such an
indirect quotation, Marty.

> Giving Roberto sole attribution neatly leaves you out of the
> equation.

It's his quotation, Marty, not mine.

> How convenient.

It's not a matter of convenience, Marty.

> Roberto didn't write the quote umpteen times in the same posting.

Irrelevant, Marty, given that I didn't say he did.

Furthermore, that doesn't explain why you would need to make such an
indirect quotation, Marty.

>>> Do try to stay focused, Professor.

>> What makes you think I'm not, Marty?

> See all evidence listed herein.

There is no such evidence herein, Marty.

>>>>> You already know my position on the matter,

>>>> Yes.  You believe yourself to be a normal, well adjusted, relaxed
individual.

>>> I'm truely impressed that you were able to come up with that!

>> Why are you so impressed, Marty?

> You've never been able to correctly read any of my statements in the
> past.

Yet another lie from a proven liar.

> Or perhaps this was just part of your infantile game.

You're erroneously presupposing the existence of an "infantile game" on my
part, Marty.

>>>> Despite that, you engaged in an action that you associated with someone
who
>>>> you claimed is not normal, well adjusted, or relaxed.

>>> Even more impressed!

>> Why are you so impressed, Marty?

> See above.

The abvoe is another lie from a proven liar (you), Marty.

>>> I did it to prove the point that it is <not> something done by a normal,
>>> well adjusted, relaxed individual.

>> But that would mean that you are not a normal, well adjusted, relaxed
>> individual, Marty.

> And when I mimic your behavior, as I had in quoting you, I was not being
> said type of individual.

Ah, so I'm dealing with someone who has admitted to not being a normal,
well adjusted, relaxed individual.  And you have the audacity to
evaluate others?

> Thus showing you a large mirror and letting you shout forth whatever
> pops into your small mind on seeing it.

Typical invective, coming from a proven liar.

>> Yet you apparently believe that you are.

> Correct.

You just admitted that you aren't, Marty.

>> Hence the apparent contradiction,

> No contradiction.

Incorrect, Marty.

> I was substantiating a claim, and you bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

Which claim might that be, Marty?

>> and therefore the reason why I asked the question, using your words.

> Thus making a fool of yourself.

How is it allegedly foolish to ask a question using your words, Marty?

>>> Glad you agree.

>> I've indicated no agreement, Marty.  Still having reading comprehension
>> problems?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 13:35:17
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: (2/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

> Still suffering tremendous embarassment at my hands?

I've not suffered any embarassment at your hands, Marty.  Ironically,
you should be suffering embarassment, having been proven as a liar.

> I do apologize Dave,

Empty words, given your persistence.

> but you bring it on yourself.

I haven't forced you to respond, Marty.

>>>>> so you are inherently agreeing with me.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm demonstrating your own hypocrisy.

>>> How was that done?

>> See above.  It's the paragraph beginning with "But that".

> And now we know why you are wrong.

Illogical, given that that paragraph doesn't show how I'm wrong. Marty.

>>> You've just demonstrated that your multiple quotations of Roberto was
>>> something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual would do.

>> Then why have you accused me of the contrary, Marty?

> Typo.

Yeah, right.

> You've just demonstrated that your multiple quotations of Roberto was
> [not] something that a normal, well adjusted, relaxed individual would
> do.

Changing your claim, I see.

> That demonstrates your hypocricy, not mine.

Actually, it demonstrates your inconsistency, Marty.

>>>>>>> Having proved my point,

>>>>>> How did you allegedly do that, Marty?

>>>>> See above.

>>>> The above doesn't show how you proved your point, Marty.

>>> Check again.

>> It still doesn't show how you proved your point, Marty.

> Check again,

It still doesn't show how you proved your point, Marty.

> and then delete this section as it contains nothing of value.

It contain evidence for another one of your lies, Marty.  I consider
that evidence to be of value.

>>>>>>> I have eliminated the repetition.

>>>>>> You haven't eliminated your "infantile game", Marty.

>>>>> Which you haven't substantiated Dave.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.

>>> Where has it been substantiated?

>> In the Navigator thread, Marty.

> Where is the proof Dave?

In the Navigator thread, Marty.

> The Navigator thread only contains an incontrovertible lie on your
> part.

It does not, Marty.  That's rather ironic, coming from a proven liar.

>>> By what means?

>> By means of reproducing your quotation in which you complained about
>> the typo in my antispammed ID.

> How is this solid obvious evidence of an infantile game?

Witness the inconsistency of your actions, Marty.

>>> "My postings" are not evidence of an infantile game Dave.

>> Yes they are, Marty.

> As are yours.

Illogical, Marty, as I have not indicated any use of a kill file for
your postings.

> But if you deny that, then you are showing your double standard once
> again.

Illogical, Marty.  What alleged double standard?

>>>>> Why not keep an open mind and retract your charge until it is proven?

>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that it hasn't been proven.

>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I was erroneous by doing so.

>> Incorrect.  Reread the proof.

> You're erroneously presupposing that I missed something the first time I
> read the alleged "proof".

If you read it and didn't miss it, then why haven't you comprehended it,
Marty?

>>>>> Could it be because you are a blatent hypocrite with a pronounced double
>>>>> standard?

>>>> No, it couldn't.

>>> It's within the realm of possibility for sure.

>> It's still not the truth.

> M] Could it be ...?

Why not quote the rest, Marty.

> DT] No, it couldn't.

I know what I wrote, Marty.

> It's within the realm of possibility for sure.

It's still not the truth, Marty.

> Your "No, it couldn't" is incorrect Dave.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> Don't embarass yourself further by denying or deflecting that fact.

I'm not embarassing myself at all, Marty.  Rather, you are by continuing
with your lies and your "infantile game".

>>> But I'd never expect such an arrogant hypocrite to admit that.

>> Given that I'm not an arrogant hypocrite,

> Evidence, please.

You made the claim, Marty, therefore the burden of proof falls on your
shoulders.

>> your statement doesn't apply to me.

> You have yet to substantiate that you are not an arrogant hypocrite.

You have yet to substantiate that I am an arrogant hypocrite, Marty.

> Your postings tell a different story.

You haven't even read them, Marty.  Otherwise you would have know about
my admissions of errors.  That proves you are a liar.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          26-Oct-99 21:00:24
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: Re: More Blatent Tholen Lies

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>
>The operative words being "did not."  Tholen's statement is accurate.  IF he
>had said, "I DO not respond to you in this thread," then your point would
>be well taken.  However, since he said "did not" in his current reply, then
>the past tense includes only prior posts in the thread, and not the reply
>you lifted the quote from.  You are trying to take Tholen's phrase, which
>clearly referred in the past tense to articles he'd written, and apply his
>words to the post that included the phrase.  For Tholen, that article would
>have to have been referred to in the present tense while he was constructing
>it.

You know, it may not be a coincidence that "Bobo" disappeared almost
precisely when "Bennie Nelson" showed up. They have the exact same
vaudeville routine.

And both are equally foolish.

Of course, Bobo ran away after he dropped his guard and revealed
himself to be a bigot. But otherwise, the above paragraph is *exactly*
the same thing that he used to post, in all ways, from content (ie,
the "Tholen apologist" circus performance) to grammatical form and
"style" (ie, plodding and somewhat pretentious, without really having
the literary talent to pull off pretention well).

I have a feeling that we're in for yet more surprises here in COOA.
Check it out. It wouldn't be the first time that someone has pulled
such a stunt

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 16:08:19
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: Re: New Warp v4.5 Client...

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

That's great!  I love it when IBM foregoes mass CD production in favor of an
ultra-expensive "We will haul our asses out there to install this product
which you could easily do by yourself for a massive amount of money."

IBM is exploiting y'all once again.  And once again, I can sit back and
laugh.

Oh, should I also ask Steven King when his next horror novel will come out?
:-)

Keep in mind that IBM also does 180 degree turnarounds at a moment's notice,
too.  So don't take any of what they're saying at blind truth.  Which means
any reply I make about them is equally invalid.  So accept them both or deny
them both.  :-)



David T. Johnson <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> Warpcast today posted notice of an upcoming announcement by IBM of an
> Aurora Warp v4.5 client:
>
> "There IS a service offering from IBM for installation and support of
> an official Aurora Client to be officially announced within the next
> couple of days."
>
> Read more at:
>
> http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4321.html
>
> Does this mean Brad Wardell was wrong when he posted the following on
> 9/18/99:
>
>
> "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."
>
>
> Of course, that couldn't possibly be the case.  Wait, I know!  IBM must
> have just CHANGED THEIR MIND a couple of weeks ago and told their
> developers to crank out a client.  Man, those IBM developers in Austin
> are QUICK!!


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 15:32:15
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 20:25:02
Subj: Re: MS is still afraid of OS/2

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

Well, at least you're not involved with Liunx...

Kim Cheung <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:49:12 -0400, Bennie Nelson wrote:
>
> >After all this time, MS is still afraid of OS/2.
>
> I have always believed that monopolist are like communist.    When they
get
> to certain mindset, nobody is in control - the machine (or alien, as
> sociologist would call it) is in control.
>
> How else can you explain using tanks to run over unarmed students?
>
>


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 16:04:10
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

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

You are suggesting I am related to the MVP people?  Tsk tsk, can any one of
us be more closed minded and naive?  I'm a windows user (obviously) and I do
knock *anything* which I believe is wrong.  Microsoft included, I made a
post (to you, actually) only a few minutes ago essentially blasting
Microsoft.  I have no loyalties.  Except to myself.  That does have
advantages.  And disadvantages.

Oh, I went to windows because I was royally pissed at IBM (I was an OS/2
user for over 4 years.  Fortunately, IBM showed me how stupid I was) and the
fact Windows has the APPLICATIONS I need and contrary to dissentary belief,
NT is quite stable and considerably faster than the 16/32-bit OS I used
previous to it.  (Applications, by the way, are the point of using a
computer.  Why have one if you can only twiddle with icons on a desktop
controlled by object desktop that locks up due to an inefficient input queue
structure?  And please don't bring up lotus stupidsuite.  That's the win32
version of smartsuite with open32 involved.  And since it's open32 involved,
lotus smartsuite on the windows side must be pretty pathetic when compared
to Corel and Microsoft offerings.  If IBM cared, why didn't IBM make a
genuine native OS/2 version like they did for the predecessor to
"Smartsuite/2"?)

Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
>
> That's a very good question, and I believe we may have found the
> best answer to the oft asked "Why are you, fill in with the name of
> a Windows user who posts in c.o.o.a, posting in this NG?"
>
> Regards,
> Bennie Nelson


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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            26-Oct-99 22:44:01
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

How interesting you should immediately jump on that message. I don't
see any mention or even implication of your name in Bennie's post, yet
apparently you do.

Hmmmm....

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:04:21, "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> You are suggesting I am related to the MVP people?  Tsk tsk, can any one of
> us be more closed minded and naive?  I'm a windows user (obviously) and I do
> knock *anything* which I believe is wrong.  Microsoft included, I made a
> post (to you, actually) only a few minutes ago essentially blasting
> Microsoft.  I have no loyalties.  Except to myself.  That does have
> advantages.  And disadvantages.
>
[snip]
>
> Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> >
> > That's a very good question, and I believe we may have found the
> > best answer to the oft asked "Why are you, fill in with the name of
> > a Windows user who posts in c.o.o.a, posting in this NG?"
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bennie Nelson
>
>

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            26-Oct-99 22:44:01
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:25:25, Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:

[snip]
> >
> > The question I would like Marty to answer is whether he intended to
> > be offensive or merely humorous.
>
> If I had intended to be offensive, I could have done a much better job
> then what I have done.
>
That sentence requires some deep thinking...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 19:09:26
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: MS is still afraid of OS/2

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
says...
> >As I have noted in this NG, one of my job assignments is NT Server
administrator.
> >Sometimes I have to look up information on or download patches from MS'
website.
> >Interestingly, I have been unable to get information from that site's
KnowledgeBase
> >while using Communicator for OS/2.  Whenever I try to select a page, the
following
> >is displayed:
> >
> >
> > [Beginning of quote from MS page]
> >       The page cannot be found
> >
> >  The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name
changed, or is
> >  temporarily unavailable.
> >
> >  Please try the following:
> >
> >  If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is
spelled
> >  correctly.
> >  Open the Microsoft Product Support Services home page, and then look for
links
> >  to the information you want.
> >  Click the  Back button in your browser to try another link.
> >  Click Support Home to go to Microsoft Product Support Services.
> >
> >  HTTP 404 - File not found
> >  Product Support Services
> > [End of quote]
> >
> >So, as a test, I used the "emulate windows" switch in the PREFS.JS file and
went to
> >the MS website.  For those who don't know what that means, putting the
following
> >line in the appropriate PREFS.JS file will cause Communicator for OS/2 to
report
> >itself as a Windows 95 version instead.
> >
> >user_pref("os2.emulate.windows", true);
> >
> >This is covered in the Release Notes page.  I tried this and as long as the
> >emulate.windows switch is "true", I had no trouble getting the information
from
> >MS' website.  I took the line out and the MS site displayed the text shown
above.
> >So, the MS site lies.  The page could be found, they just wouldn't send it
if
> >they could detect that the machine running is OS/2.
> >
> >After all this time, MS is still afraid of OS/2.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Bennie Nelson
> >
>
> You get problems trying to access MS' site from IE 2.0. So MS is afraid of
> Windows, also.

Oops.  I thought you were.  Glad it isn't true.

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 19:16:08
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: MS is still afraid of OS/2

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Marty wrote:
>
> Oops.  I thought you were.

Gone, that is.

>  Glad it isn't true.
>
> - Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                26-Oct-99 22:19:07
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: IBM Licenses SciTech Graphics Technology!

From: [e-mail] (Jack Troughton)

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:35:37, [e-mail] wrote:

ΩIn article <[e-mail]>,
Ω  [e-mail] wrote:
█
Ω> You may not be aware that we here in Europe (and perhaps some other
Ω> places in the world) do not live under the ruling in the USA forcing
█
ΩWhat ruling??
█
Ω> your phone-companies to provide local access for a fixed monthly fee
Ω> only.
█
ΩWhat the hell are you talking about?

In Europe, you pay by the minute whether you are calling around the
world or next door.

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montr┌al PQ Canada

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             26-Oct-99 17:13:05
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Mark" <[e-mail]>

Repeat after me.  The MVP program is a technical support program, not
an advocacy program.  The MVP program is used only on MS's own news
server (which does get gated into the general usenet, but it
originates on MS's servers) and only in the microsoft.public.* groups.

What you are referring to is the fabled "astroturfing" which, if it
does exist, is totally unrelated to MVP's.  MVP's are volunteers who
are unpaid.  Suggesting that getting discounts is a form of "Payment"
is silly.  Lots of people get discounts on things (such as MSDN
members, Certified Professionals, Technet members).  MS also has a
program called the ISV program which gives hefty (as much as $2000 off
the MSDN Universal subscription) discounts to companies with shipping
products.

By your (and Dvorak's) logic, going to a "half off" sale is the same
as having the store pay you.

The MVP program has been reinstated, BTW.  They recieved over 2500
complaints from users (and there are only 600 MVP's in the entire
program) from users who were worried about losing the valuable service
MVP's provide in the MS newsgroups.

David T. Johnson <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> Columnist John Dvorak has posted a provocative analysis of
Microsoft's
> MVP online advocacy program which states:
>
> "The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many of
> these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks. The
> concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP home page
> seems to be discounts of some sort."
>
> Read more at:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/opinions/0,7802,2380951,00.html
>
> So...who were the Microsoft MVPs who hung out at COOA?????

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 18:25:12
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Bennie Nelson wrote:
>
> Dave Tholen wrote:
> >
> > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> >
> > > Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and you replied
> > > to that one.
> >
> > Not line by line, as Marty alleged.
>
> Although I have not read every post in the threads, I have not seen any
> post that shows you answering any of the parodies line by line.  If you
> had, it would be simple for Marty to supply a DEJA URL for the post.

http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538247932&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&hitnum=7

http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538459252&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=14

> > > Based upon what I've read in your subsequent posts, it seems that
> > > you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being ridicule rather
> > > than humorous.
> >
> > That's the correct interpretation.
>
> The question I would like Marty to answer is whether he intended to
> be offensive or merely humorous.

If I had intended to be offensive, I could have done a much better job
then what I have done.

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 18:44:18
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Die Jest 3 - With a Vengeance

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Here's another gem.  Editorials not present in the original article are
noted in square brackets.  The original article is somewhere in the
depths of the Advocacy's Mosquito thread.

------------------------

>>>>> Could it be because you are a blatent hypocrite with a pronounced double
>>>>> standard?

>>>> No, it couldn't.

>>> It's within the realm of possibility for sure.

>> It's still not the truth.

> M] Could it be ...?

Why not quote the rest, Marty.

[of course the rest is quoted a few lines above -- "Could it be because
you are a blat[a]nt ..."]

> DT] No, it couldn't.

I know what I wrote, Marty.

> It's within the realm of possibility for sure.

It's still not the truth, Marty.

[whether truth or not, it is obviously in the realm of possibility]

> Your "No, it couldn't" is incorrect Dave.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

[the punchline]

> Don't embarass yourself further by denying or deflecting that fact.

I'm not embarassing myself at all, Marty.  Rather, you are by continuing
with your lies and your "infantile game".

[note the deflection]

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 11:07:08
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>> The concern is the entire sentence structure.

>> Looking at the entire sentence structure won't do you any good if you
>> ignore the definitions of the words contained in the sentence.

> The definitions of the words are central to my claim.

Impossible, given the way you ignored the definition of the word
"prevent".

> See the "costly mistakes" thread for the proof.

There is no proof of yours in that thread, Lucien.

>>>> entire sentence structure.  You claimed that there is an analogous
>>>> word, yet you've consistently failed to identify it.

>>> I claimed there was an analogy.

>> You indicated that there is an analogous word.

> I indicated there was an analogy (you provide evidence for this for me
> below).

You indicated there was an analogous word, by contradicting my claim
that there is not any analogous word.

>>> The proof is in the "costly mistakes" thread.

>> Impossible,

> Quite possible.

Incorrect, Lucien, for the reason given in the rest of the sentence
that you split off.

>> given that what you claimed in the present situation had
>> not yet happened at the time of that thread.

> Irrelevant, given that the congruence in the data is independent of any
> chronology.

Your claims are not independent of the chronology, Lucien.

>> This is the third time you've made the same chronological error.

> This is the third time you've repeated this mistaken claim.

You're erroneously presupposing that my claim is mistaken, Lucien.

>>>> repeat, but you have, namely your failure to understand the
>>>> definition of "prevent" and the illogic of using 1.1.8 to describe
>>>> a product that might implement the full 1.2 functionality.

>>> Reread your JDK statement and then the "costly mistakes" thread to
>>> see the analogy.

>> Unnecessary, given that there is no analogy.

> There is an analogy.

Impossible, given that there is no word like "prevent" whose definition
eliminates the alleged ambiguity, Lucien.  In the present case, the
ambiguity is resolved via the logical interpretation of IBM's use of
an older version number, not some word definition.

>> The word "prevent" does not allow for a single costly mistake.

> Wrong.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>> The word "implements" does allow for either "some" or "all"
>> functionality, in the absence of any other information.

> Glad you agree with me.

The problem is that there is no absence of other information in the
present case, Lucien.

>> Thus the use of the word "prevent" eliminates any
>> alleged ambiguity.

> I think you mean "implements" here.

No, I do not.  "Implements" by itself does not eliminate any ambiguity.
In the present case, the ambiguity is resolved via the logical
interpretation of IBM's use of an older version number, not some word
definition.  Having more reading comprehension problems, Lucien?
Clearly, you're not following the argument.

>> Meanwhile, there is additional information that
>> eliminates the "all" possibility when interpreting the
>> word "implements".

> You're almost there. Now, to wrap it up, what about the case where the
> additional information is lacking?

Irrelevant, given that additional information is not lacking in the
present situation.

> Hint: review your statement above "The word 'implements' does allow
> for either 'some' or 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

Hint:  the present situation provides additional information, Lucien.

>> These are not analogous cases.

> On the contrary, they are precisely analogous cases,

Incorrect, as the ambiguity is resolved in the older case by the
definition of a word, while the ambiguity is resolved in the recent
case by the logical interpretation of IBM's use of an older version
number.

> as you've just demonstrated (using a permutation of my line of
> reasoning from the "costly mistakes" thread).

I've not used any permutation of your reasoning, Lucien, because
your reasoning is wrong.

>> A definition eliminates ambiguity in the older case, and the
>> application of logic to the use of 1.1.8 as the version number
>> eliminates ambiguity in the more recent case.  Quite different,
>> and not analogous at all.

> Wrong.

Balderdash, Lucien.

> The "prevents costly mistakes" and "implements functionality"
> cases are directly analogous

Incorrect, given that "prevents" and "implements" are not analogous.
because the definition of "prevents" eliminates the alleged
ambiguity, while the definition of "implements" does not.

> in that both exhibit ambiguity with respect to quantification
> according to additional contextual informat,

Incorrect, Lucien, as the "prevent costly mistakes" case does not
exhibit any ambiguity.

> as you've just clearly showed.

You're obviously not comprehending what I've written, Lucien.

> Good job.

You're erroneously presupposing that I've proven your position,
Lucien.  In reality, I've proven you're wrong.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 19:01:00
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson wrote:
>
> You are suggesting I am related to the MVP people?

No, silly.  MVP stands for most valuable <PROFESSIONAL>.  He would make
the mistake of associating you with them.

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 19:02:23
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Mike Ruskai wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:42:15 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
>
> >Columnist John Dvorak has posted a provocative analysis of Microsoft's
> >MVP online advocacy program which states:
> >
> >"The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many of
> >these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks. The
> >concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP home page
> >seems to be discounts of some sort."
> >
> >Read more at:
> >
> >http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/opinions/0,7802,2380951,00.html
> >
> >So...who were the Microsoft MVPs who hung out at COOA?????
>
> Well, take a look at who's no longer posting, now that the MVP program is
> over.  Steven Den Beste is one, and I don't think it's a mystery to anyone
> here that he was working for MS, directly or indirectly.

McCoy has also seemed to clam up.

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 15:33:16
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: (1/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> [repetetive ramblings removed]

Deleting evidence again, eh Marty?  Well, it came back to haunt you
this time.

>>>>> and arrogantly.

>>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

>>> On the basis that you are <telling> me.

>> That doesn't prove any arrogance, Marty.

> You are telling me what I should conclude.

Logically, Marty.  Not otherwise.

> That is arrogance Dave.

On the contrary, it's an example of poor reading comprehension on
your part, Marty.

> Your refusal to accept that fact is further evidence thereof.

Your inability to properly comprehend what I wrote is further evidence
that your claims can be dismissed.

>>> You can't tell me what to conclude.

>> I'm telling you what you can logically conclude, Marty.  There is a
>> difference.

> You can't tell me what I can logically conclude,

Yes I can, Marty.

> as you may have been in error (as in this case).

What alleged error in this case, Marty?

> As surely as I "can make a programming error", you can make a logical error.

Feel free to identify any logical errors on my part, Marty.

>>>>>> You can reach all the illogical conclusions you want, Marty, if you
want
>>>>>> to look like a fool.

>>>>> There's been a whole lot of "looking like a fool" around here, but it is
>>>>> mostly due to those who responded to song lyrics.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm still waiting for the evidence you claim to have
>>>> regarding an alleged line by line response to song lyrics.

>>> Short memory, eh?

>> Not at all, Marty.

> Your response is evidence to the contrary.

Incorrect, Marty.  My evidence proves that I did not respond to song lyrics
line by line.

>>> Meanwhile where is your evidence of illogical conclusion?

>> The evidence is the lack your substantiation, Marty.

> You obviously didn't bother to read the evidence presented.

On the contrary, I did.  No song lyrics were present.

> That's your problem, not mine.

You're erroneously presupposing that it's a problem, Marty.  Why don't
you just let it be?

>>> Why, nowhere to be seen!

>> What's nowhere to be seen is your substantiation, Marty.  That lack
>> is my evidence.

> Stop embarassing yourself.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm embarassing myself, Marty.

>>> Since this evidence was so easy to come by, I'll gladly provide it
>>> again to drive the point home (something you are unwilling to do in
>>> spite of your claims of "obvious evidence" against me).
>>>
>>>
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538247932&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&hitnum=7

>> Here's the contents, Marty:
>>
>> ] 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.

> **SL**

On what basis do you call that a song lyric, Marty?

>> ]
>> ] Non sequitur.  You didn't answer my question, Marty.
>> ]
>> ] > You probably think this thread is about you.

> **SL** [thread substituted for song]

On what basis do you call that a song lyric, Marty?  You admit to
changing the words and still have the gall to claim it's a song
lyric?

>> ]
>> ] Incorrect, Marty.  You still didn't answer my question.
>> ]
>> ] > You're so vain.

> **SL**

On what basis do you call that a song lyric, Marty?

>> ]
>> ] Non sequitur.  You still didn't answer my question, Marty.
>> ]
>> ] > I bet you think this thread is about you.

> **SL** [thread substituted for song]

On what basis do you call that a song lyric, Marty?  You admit to
changing the words and still have the gall to claim it's a song
lyric?

>> ]
>> ] Incorrect, Marty.  You still didn't answer my question.
>> ]
>> ] > Don't you?  Don't you?

> **SL**

On what basis do you call that a song lyric, Marty?

>> ]
>> ] 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.
>>
>> There's no line-by-line response to song lyrics in that article, Marty.

> Blatently incorrect Dave.  The song lyrics have been notated above and
> below with **SL**.

Just because you call them song lyrics doesn't make it so, Marty,
especially after you've changed the words.  What gives you the
authority to change words and still claim they are song lyrics, Marty?
In what song do those exact words allegedly exist?

> Please stop embarassing yourself.

You're the one embarassing yourself, Marty.

> Even I have a conscience somewhere.

Obviously not here.

>>>
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538459252&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=14

>> Here's the contents, Marty:

>> ] 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,

> **SL** ["Mr. Tholen" substituted for "said the night man"]

On what basis do you call that a song lyric, Marty?  You admit to
changing the words and still have the gall to claim it's a song
lyric?

>> ]
>> ] What makes you think I'm not already relaxed, Marty?
>> ]
>> ] > My killfile is programmed to receive.

> **SL** ["My killfile" substituted for "We are"]

On what basis do you call that a song lyric, Marty?  You admit to
changing the words and still have the gall to claim it's a song
lyric?

>> ]
>> ] 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.

> **SL**

On what basis do you call that a song lyric, Marty?

>> ]
>> ] Illogical.
>>
>> There's no line-by-line response to song lyrics in that article either,
>> Marty.  Did you even bother to check your own evidence?

> Please stop embarassing yourself.

You're the one embarassing yourself, Marty.

>>> And after these two posts you go on to say:
>>> DT] I pointed out the illogic of your usage of those lyrics as responses
>>> DT] to me.  I said nothing about the lyrics themselves.

>> Where did I say that, Marty?  Certainly not in response to those two
>> posts, because there aren't any song lyrics in those two posts.

>
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538655385&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=16

That's not a response to those two posts, Marty.

> This came in response to my rendition of "Hotel California" by the
> Eagles.

Where I didn't respond line by line either, Marty.

> Please stop embarassing yourself.

You're the one embarassing yourself, Marty.

> [part of Tholen's foot removed from his mouth out of mercy]

Deleting evidence again, eh Marty?  Well, it came back to haunt you
this time.

>>>>> Then you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot conclude,
>>>>> logically

>>>> Yes I do, Marty.

>>> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

>>> What gives you that right?

>> Understanding of logic, Marty.

> And your understanding of logic is flawless such that you can
> definitively tell me what I may conclude.

If you find any logical errors on my part, Marty, you are welcome to
call them to my attention.

> Furthermore, your understanding of logic is superior to mine by
> your assumption?

By evidence, Marty.

> How arrogant.

Nothing arrogant about noting the evidence, Marty.

>>>>> or otherwise.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't claim I have any right,

>>> My Dave... this was only a few lines back... getting senile already?

>> Typical invective.

> You presented evidence of senility.

Yours, Marty.

> No "invective" was present in my comment.

Incorrect, Marty, as I've not demonstrated any evidence that would warrant
such a remark from you.

>>> M ] Then you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot conclude,
>>> M ] logically
>>>
>>> DT] Yes I do, Marty.

>> My Marty... getting senile already?

> Typical invective.

No more so than your own remark, Marty, and with considerably more
evidence to support the accusation.

>> You've swapped the responses, apparently because of your reading
>> comprehension problem.

> Are these not the same word that were written, verbatim, with nothing
> inserted or missing?

You've swapped the responses, apparently because of your reading
comprehension problem, as I just finished telling you.

> Seems like someone has a reading comprehension problem, but that
> "someone" isn't me.

I'm not the one who got the responses reversed, Marty.  That would be
you.

>> I do have the right to tell you what you can conclude logically.

> Incorrect, as shown a bit above.

A bit above doesn't show that I'm incorrect, Marty.  See my response a
bit above.

>> I did not claim that I have the right to tell you what you can conclude
>> otherwise.  You do realize that you wrote "logically or otherwise",
>> don't you?  You do realize that I responded to each separately,
>> because the answer for each was different, don't you?

> And you do realize that I just applied your own "technique" back at you,
> don't you?

That's not my "technique", Marty.

>>> That's pretty embarassing for you Dave.

>> Illogical, given that the embarassment is all yours, Marty, given
>> that you swapped the answers.

> I pity you.

You're the one who needs the pity, Marty.

>>> I'll understand if you choose to remove this section from your
>>> response.

>> Why would I want to remove more evidence for your reading comprehension
>> problem, Marty?

> Terribly sorry I made you shove your foot so far down your throat.

You're erroneously presupposing such an action, Marty.

>>>> otherwise.

>>> Otherwise what?

>> Put it back together with the rest of the sentence, Marty.  It's
>> the same "otherwise" as you were referring to.  How embarassing for
>> you.

> Poor Dave.

I'm not poor, Marty.

>>>>>>>>> Oh, but I forgot... that doesn't work for me, does it?

>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't.

>>>>>>> Again the blatent double-standard.

>>>>>> What alleged double-standard, Marty?

>>>>> You have, of course, removed any relevant materials that would indicate
>>>>> such things.

>>>> Where have I allegedly done that, Marty?

>>> Where haven't you done that Dave?

>> See above for evidence, Marty.

> And now you wish to use my demonstration as evidence against me.  Stop
> embarassing yourself.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm embarassing myself, Marty.

>>>>>>>>> That only works for you.

>>>>>>>> Where have I concluded that you're pretending, Marty?

>>>>>>> Having trouble recognizing that this statement was generalized?

>>>>>> Having trouble being sequitur, Marty?

>>>>> Not at all Dave.

>>>> Then why did you make the statement, Marty?

>>> Because it was quite appropriate.

>> Incorrect, given that it was not sequitur.

> It is now, since you've destroyed the context,

How did I allegedly do that, Marty?

> but originally it was quite sequitur.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> [repetition removed]

Destroying context, eh Marty?  How ironic.

>>>>> You've, of course, removed all context from my statements by splitting
>>>>> them up individually,

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.  The context is still there.

>>> The words are still here, but the context is utterly destroyed

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> How is the context maintained, being that the flow of the statements
> have been decisively destroyed?

On what basis do you claim that the flow of the statements has been
decisively destroyed, Marty?

[By the way, the subject is "flow", which is singular, and calls for
the verb "has been", not "have been".]

> I don't expect you to understand the concept of context.

I don't expect you to substantiate your claim that context was
destroyed.

>>> thanks to your sentence-by-sentence or often phrase-by-phrase
>>> commentary "style".

>> That style doesn't destroy context, Marty.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>>>> questioned them as if they had nothing to do with one another,

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.

>>> You're doing it now!

>> No context was destroyed, Marty.

> Please stop embarassing yourself.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm embarassing myself, Marty.

>>> How embarassing.

>> For you, Marty.

> Please stop embarassing yourself.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm embarassing myself, Marty.

>>>>> and reinterpretted them literally in a way that suits you.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.  I interpreted them in the way that they were written,
>>>> Marty.

>>> How do you know the way that they were written?

>> By reading them, Marty.

> That's not adequate to make your claim of interpreting them the way they
> were written.

Of course it is, Marty.

>>> Did you write them?

>> Unnecessary, Marty.

> Quite necessary, considering your claim of interpreting them the way
> they were written.

Illogical, given that readers can interpret words.  Such interpretation
is not limited to authors.

>>> I am more of an authority on what my words say than you are Dave.

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?  The words say what they
>> say.

> Therein lies a fundamental flaw in your logic and reasoning process.

On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim, Marty?

>>> That's a fact.

>> Prove it, Marty.

> No need.

On the contrary, there is a need, Marty.

> It is obvious to anyone with an understanding of English being
> a language subject to interpretation.

In which case I can interpret the statement you just made as an
admission that I am right.  Now, do you want to change your story,
Marty?

>>>>> This allows you to plug your specific instance into my general
>>>>> statement, and call it "illogical".

>>>> I used the relevant instance, Marty.  It would illogical to use an
>>>> irrelevant instance.

>>> Never stopped you before, nor in this case.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I used an irrelevant instance,
>> Marty.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification, Marty.

>>>>> It's getting old, Dave.

>>>> How ironic, coming from someone whose postings "got old" a long time
>>>> ago.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 15:33:16
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: (2/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

>>> How did they do that?  Prove it, if you think you can.

>> By being more your "infantile game", Marty.

> Whose existence you have yet to substantiate.

Incorrect, Marty.  I reproduced the relevant quotation several times
now.

> Your own infantile game is proceeding well it seems.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing an "infantile game",
Marty.

>>>>>>> I'm not surprised.

>>>>>> I'm not surprised that you were apparently non sequitur.

>>>>> Nor am I surprised that you failed to comprehend my statement.

>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I failed to comprehend your
>>>> statement, Marty.

>>> Your failure to comprehend is obvious given your replies.

>> My replies do not indicate any failure to comprehend, Marty.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification, Marty.

>> That's rather ironic, considering your failure to comprehend my response
>> to your "logically or otherwise" remark.

> Please stop embarassing yourself.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm embarassing myself, Marty.

>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>> I did no such thing, Marty.  I was simply noting that your claim
>>>>>> "not 'invective'" is incorrect.

>>>>> How is, "He's on the road to recovery" classifiable as "invective" Dave?

>>>> Read the dictionary definition, Marty.

>>> Ok.  Now what?  How is, "He's on the road to recovery" classifiable as
>>> "invective" Dave?

>> Did you bother to comprehend the meaning of the word "invective", Marty?

> How is, "He's on the road to recovery" classifiable as "invective"
> Dave?

You're abusing me, Marty.

> I've noted that you have not substantiated this claim.

On the contrary, I have.

>>>>>>> How arrogant.

>>>>>> How abusive.

>>>>> How irrelevant.

>>>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, as the use of abuse is often
>>>> what indicates the lack of a logical argument.

>>> Incorrect, as there is no lack of a logical argument on my part.

>> On the contrary, you don't have a logical argument at all.

> Please stop embarassing yourself.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm embarassing myself, Marty.

> [more repetition removed]

Destroying more context, eh Marty?  How ironic.

>>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>> Simple:  read your postings, Marty.

>>>>> I have, but this failed to provide me with any evidence of an infantile
>>>>> game.

>>>> You obviously didn't read enough of them, Marty.

>>> I've read all of them Dave (I wrote them, remember?).

>> You're admitting to writing all that illogic, Marty???

> More reading comprehension problems?

Obviously not, Marty.

> I've admitted to reading my postings Dave.

You also added "(I wrote them, remember?)", Marty.

>>> Is "all" still "not enough"?

>> It requires comprehension as well, Marty.

> Irrelevant to the question asked.

Comprehension is never irrelevant, Marty.

>>> I guess your claim will have to go unsubstantiated again,
>>> as usual.

>> The substantiation is their existence, Marty,

> Funny, but that doesn't work for any of my arguments.

Not when the existence is only alleged, Marty.

> Sounds like the old double standard is at it again.

Not at all, Marty.  My evidence actually exists.

>> and the statement of yours reproduced a few lines down.

> Which?

The statement of yours reproduced a few lines down.

>>>>> Perhaps you should substantiate your claim Dave,

>>>> I already did, Marty.  I reproduced the following once already:
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> Here you are quite clearly stating that you do not wish to see my
>>>> allegedly "self-absorbed drivel", and you are asking me to keep my
>>>> ID consistent so that you can filter them out.
>>>>
>>>> Suddenly you not only wish to see them, you wish to respond to them,
>>>> and the filtering process has stopped.

>>> Do you wish to see my postings Dave?

>> Non sequitur.

>>> I'd much prefer if you'd stop posting altogether,

>> Practice what you preach, Marty.

> How does one practice "preferring you to stop posting"?

By stopping your posting altogether, Marty.

>>> hence I still don't "wish to see them".

>> Use your killfile, Marty.

> And allow the readers to be mislead by your lies?

What alleged lies of mine, Marty?

> That would be quite convenient for you.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm misleading readers with lies,
Marty.

>>> I will respond to those whichever postings I feel like, regardless of
>>> message filters

>> And regardless of your claim that you do not wish to see them.  Typical
>> inconsistency.  Typical illogical.  Typical failure to admit an error.

> Responding to a posting doesn't mean I wished to see it.

It does in this case, Marty, given your widely advertised use of a
killfile.

> I'd have much preferred if there were no lies and inaccuracies to correct,

There aren't any on my part, Marty, but you've provided plenty.

> however, you are an ample supply of such things.

Yet another example of you lying.

> There was no inconsistency, illogic, failure, or error on my part.

There is an example of you lying, Marty.

>>> (whose workings you are obviously still unaware).

>> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> You claimed that my filter feature was malfunctioning.

Obviously postings are getting through, Marty.

> It is not.

Then why are my postings getting through to you, Marty?

> This is your failure to understand its workings.

On the contrary, it's your failure to use it properly.

> Quite substantiated and true.

Where is the alleged substantiation, Marty?

> Typical inconsistency on your part.

Where is the alleged inconsistency on my part, Marty?

> Typical illogic on your part.

Where is the alleged illogic on my part, Marty?

> Typical failure to admit your error.

Where is the alleged error of mine, Marty?


>>> This is not evidence of an infantile game Dave.

>> Balderdash, Marty.

> Typical pontification, but where is the solid evidence?

You deleted it, Marty.  I told you that your deletion came back
to haunt you.

>>>>> or perhaps you should abondon it as you are clearly wrong.

>>>> Incorrect, as I am clearly right.

>>> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>> Incorrect, as the substantiation is above.

> No substantiation exists in this posting on your part.

You deleted it, Marty.  I told you that your deletion came back
to haunt you.

>>>>>>> You're the one claiming it exists.

>>>>>> I'm looking at it.

>>>>> That does not prove it exists.

>>>> On the contrary, it does, Marty.

>>> I'm seeing a pink elephant with wings that can do the Mambo in my mind
>>> Dave.  Does that prove that it exists?

>> Irrelevant, given that the issue doesn't involve things you see in your
>> mind, Marty.

> It does involve things you are seeing in your mind however, so it is
> quite relevant.

What am I allegedly seeing in my mind, Marty?

>>>>>>> You then tell me I'm playing it and tell me that I should know the
rules
>>>>>>> and how many points I've earned.

>>>>>> It's your game, Marty.

>>>>> If it's my game, then how come I know nothing of it?

>>>> You do know of it, Marty, and your denial is simply part of your game.

>>> So now you know me better than I know myself.

>> I never said that, Marty.

> DT] You do know of it, Marty, and your denial is simply part of your
> game.

That's not "So now you know me better than I know myself", Marty.

> I have out-right told you I know of no such infantile game,

Such a claim is just part of the "infantile game", Marty.

> yet you tell me I do.

With good reason, Marty,

> That tells me you are claiming to know me better than I know
> myself,

Incorrect, Marty.

> which is a blatent lie.

On the contrary, it's a blatant reading comprehension problem on your
part, Marty.

> Please stop embarassing yourself.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm embarassing myself, Marty.

>>> How absurd and arrogant.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I claimed to know you better than
>> you know yourself, Marty.

> But you have.

Where have I allegedly done that, Marty?

>>>>>>> How can I, seeing as how it is all in your head?

>>>>>> It's not in my head, Marty.  It's right here in the newsgroup, in plain
>>>>>> sight for all the readers to see.

>>>>> Please demonstrate or retract your erroneous claim.

>>>> It's already been demonstrated, Marty, therefore no retraction is
>>>> necessary.

>>> Incorrect.

>> Typical pontification.

> As was your alleged "demonstration".

On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim, Marty?

>>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

>>>>> See above.

>>>> The above doesn't change the fact that you made yet another
unsubstantiated
>>>> and erroneous claim, Marty.

>>> Nor the fact that you just lied.

>> There is no lie on my part, Marty.

>>> But don't fret.  We're all used to it by now.

>> On what basis do you claim to speak for "all", Marty?

>>>>>>> The evidence you are about to request is above,

>>>>>> What request, Marty?

>>>>> DT] "Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."

>>>> That's not a request, Marty.  That's a statement.

>>> So you don't desire substantiation for my claim and you accept it?

>> Irrelevant, given that the statement is not a request.

> Pure idiocy to deny such a thing,

On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim, Marty?

> but this article needs to be shortened.

Non sequitur.

> [snip]

Deleting evidence again, eh Marty?  Well, it came back to haunt you
this time.

>>> There's more than enough evidence in this and several other thread in
>>> which we have had correspondence.

>> Then why are you having such a hard time reproducing some, Marty?

> Feel free to check the evidence.  Is mounding up quite high.

Where is the alleged mound, Marty?

>>>>> Observe how you split the statement from its context

>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I split the statement from its
>>>> context, Marty.

>>> You're doing it right now Dave!

>> No statement was split from its context, Marty.

> Please stop embarassing yourself.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm embarassing myself, Marty.

> M] Observe how you split the statement from its context [...]
> several lines later
> M] and gave a staunchly literal interpretation that suited you.

Is the above supposed to be some sort of evidence that a statement was
split from its context, Marty?  It fails as evidence for that.

> [I allow Dave to switch feet in his mouth for a while by removing some
> further embarassment]

You're erroneously presupposing that I have any feet in my mouth,
Marty.

>>> I'm not question that you interpreted what I wrote.
>>> I'm pointing out the way in which it was interpretted.

>> I interpreted it properly, Marty.

> Thus claiming that you know my intended meaning better than I do.

I never said that, Marty.

> More hypocrisy, lies, and arrogance.

More like more reading comprehension problems on your part, Marty.

>>> I wouldn't expect you to pick up on that fact, however.

>> I wouldn't expect you to admit that I interpreted your statements
>> properly.

> And why should I seeing that you haven't.

But I have, Marty.  That's why you should.

>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty, given that I've been correcting erroneous statements
>>>>>> made by others.

>>>>> Where?

>>>> In this newsgroup, Marty.

>>> Where?

>> In this newsgroup, Marty.

> "This newsgroup" is a big place, Dave.

You're helping to make it that way, Marty.

> I don't expect you to substantiate your pontification.

See below for some substantiation, 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.

>>>>>>> Then I'm not following you around, Dave.

>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.

>>>>> Prove that I am following you around Dave.

>>>> I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.

>>> That's a blatent lie.

>> Prove it, if you think you can, Marty.

> Please stop embarassing yourself.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm embarassing myself, Marty.

> M] Prove that I am following you around Dave. <== my response to you
> D] I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.  <== your response to
> me
> M] That's a blatent lie. <== my response to you

Didn't we go over this once already, Marty?

> "I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty." was in response to
> "Prove that I am following you around Dave.", stated by me in this
> thread.

Which indicates that you were the first to respond to me rather than
the other way around, Marty.  That was the context of the discussion.
You commented on my response to Roberto Alsina.

> Your failure to admit a mistake this blatent shocked even me and tells
> me everything further I need to know about your character and your brand
> of "logic".

There is no mistake on my part, Marty.  Your failure to recognize the
context shocked even me and tells everything further I need to know about
your character and your brand of "logic".

> "So, now, fuck you for the remainder."
>     --Roberto Alsina

Interesting quotation, Marty.  How is it appropriate here?  Perhaps you
don't like being embarassed by the evidence I presented for you being a
liar, so you deleted it?  Here, let me reinsert it for you:

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 15:33:16
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: (3/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

] >>> Incorrect.  The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is
] >>> evidence of your own infantile game,
]
] >> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of such a fact, Marty, but
] >> I have successfully demonstrated the fallacy of the claim to all the
] >> others who have attempted to use it.
]
] > I would like to be proven wrong on this.  Please demonstrate.
]
] Here we go again:
]
] ] Date: 10 Dec 1997 00:00:00 GMT
] ] Message-ID: <66l54r$[e-mail]>
] ]
] ] DougWMI writes:
] ]
] ] >> "I've been dead before."
] ] >>   --Mr. Spock, Star Trek V (The Final Frontier)
] ]
] ] > Actually, Spock said this in Star Trek VI, not V.
] ]
] ] The Undiscovered Country.  I stand corrected.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 18:54:16
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: More Blatent Tholen Lies

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>
> >The operative words being "did not."  Tholen's statement is accurate.  IF
he
> >had said, "I DO not respond to you in this thread," then your point would
> >be well taken.  However, since he said "did not" in his current reply, then
> >the past tense includes only prior posts in the thread, and not the reply
> >you lifted the quote from.  You are trying to take Tholen's phrase, which
> >clearly referred in the past tense to articles he'd written, and apply his
> >words to the post that included the phrase.  For Tholen, that article would
> >have to have been referred to in the present tense while he was
constructing
> >it.
>
> You know, it may not be a coincidence that "Bobo" disappeared almost
> precisely when "Bennie Nelson" showed up. They have the exact same
> vaudeville routine.

Sorry, but I can't quite see that.  BobO was an obnoxious, hateful,
bigotted prick.

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            26-Oct-99 19:06:04
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: MS is still afraid of OS/2

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

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>As I have noted in this NG, one of my job assignments is NT Server
administrator.
>Sometimes I have to look up information on or download patches from MS'
website.
>Interestingly, I have been unable to get information from that site's
KnowledgeBase
>while using Communicator for OS/2.  Whenever I try to select a page, the
following
>is displayed:
>
>
> [Beginning of quote from MS page]
>       The page cannot be found
>
>  The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed,
or is
>  temporarily unavailable.
>
>  Please try the following:
>
>  If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is
spelled
>  correctly.
>  Open the Microsoft Product Support Services home page, and then look for
links
>  to the information you want.
>  Click the  Back button in your browser to try another link.
>  Click Support Home to go to Microsoft Product Support Services.
>
>  HTTP 404 - File not found
>  Product Support Services
> [End of quote]
>
>So, as a test, I used the "emulate windows" switch in the PREFS.JS file and
went to
>the MS website.  For those who don't know what that means, putting the
following
>line in the appropriate PREFS.JS file will cause Communicator for OS/2 to
report
>itself as a Windows 95 version instead.
>
>user_pref("os2.emulate.windows", true);
>
>This is covered in the Release Notes page.  I tried this and as long as the
>emulate.windows switch is "true", I had no trouble getting the information
from
>MS' website.  I took the line out and the MS site displayed the text shown
above.
>So, the MS site lies.  The page could be found, they just wouldn't send it if

>they could detect that the machine running is OS/2.
>
>After all this time, MS is still afraid of OS/2.
>
>Regards,
>Bennie Nelson
>

You get problems trying to access MS' site from IE 2.0. So MS is afraid of
Windows, also.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          26-Oct-99 07:24:01
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: More Blatent Tholen Lies

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Marty wrote:
>
> For those of you that appreciate a good dose of Tholen hypocrisy but
> have grown weary of length postings, I reproduce the following concise,
> self-contained, blatent lie told by Tholen which he refused to admit
> (lifted from the depths of the "Advocacy's Mosquito" thread).  This is
> fairly conclusive evidence of a mental illness, or at the very least, an
> infantile game played by the wacky professor.  This is one for the
> archives.  ;-)
>
> - Marty
>
> --------------------------------
>
> > >>> Prove that I am following you around Dave.
> >
> > >> I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.
> >
> > > That's a blatent lie.
> >
> > Prove it, if you think you can, Marty.
>
> Please stop embarassing yourself.
>
> M] Prove that I am following you around Dave. <== my response to you
> D] I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.  <== your response to
> me
> M] That's a blatent lie. <== my response to you
>
> "I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty." was in response to
> "Prove that I am following you around Dave.", stated by me in this
> thread.

The operative words being "did not."  Tholen's statement is accurate.  IF he
had said, "I DO not respond to you in this thread," then your point would
be well taken.  However, since he said "did not" in his current reply, then
the past tense includes only prior posts in the thread, and not the reply
you lifted the quote from.  You are trying to take Tholen's phrase, which
clearly referred in the past tense to articles he'd written, and apply his
words to the post that included the phrase.  For Tholen, that article would
have to have been referred to in the present tense while he was constructing
it.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that the earlier
incarnation of "Advocacy's Mosquito" is not relevant.

>
> Your failure to admit a mistake this blatent shocked even me and tells
> me everything further I need to know about your character and your brand
> of "logic".

Will you admit you misunderstood his meaning because you misunderstood
the implication of the tense he used?

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          26-Oct-99 07:29:26
  To: All                                               26-Oct-99 21:24:08
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Dale Ross wrote:
>
> You are replying to my comment. I entered this thread at a specific point to
> address a specific issue. I have no interest in taking you up on any offer
> you might have. I have no interest in debating or arguing with you which OS
> is better. I use Windows because it fits my needs the best. 10 years ago I
> was using OS/2. I made a personal decision in 1992 to go with Windows NT
> over OS/2. I've not regretted that move to date.
>
> If you don't want to run Windows that is OK with me. It doesn't impact me
> one way or the other which OS you choose run.
>
> Dale

Mr. Ross,

I've taken your words and modified them:

I use OS/2 because it fits my needs the best. 10 years ago I was using
Windows. I made a personal decision in 1993 to go with OS/2 over Windows.
I've not regretted that move to date.

If you don't want to run OS/2 that is OK with me. It doesn't impact me
one way or the other which OS you choose run.

One question about your post: which version of Windows NT was available
in 1992?

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 11:36:08
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:08
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
> that you were referencing.

You're a proven liar, Mike.  I want you to address the evidence before
we go any further.  Your diversionary tactic isn't going to help you.

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: [e-mail]
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$[e-mail]>
]
] 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.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$[e-mail]>
]
] In article <[e-mail]>, Joseph  <[e-mail]> 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.
]
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
]
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <[e-mail]>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
]
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
]
] > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
]
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on.
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
]
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
]
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
]
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         26-Oct-99 11:34:11
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

Well, I had two hits.  Not only did Mike delete the evidence, which is
one of the possibilities I suggested, he also continued to lie, which
is another one of the possibilities I suggested.

Let's get right to the evidence, avoiding all of Timbol's diversionary
tactics:

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: [e-mail]
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$[e-mail]>
]
] 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.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$[e-mail]>
]
] In article <[e-mail]>, Joseph  <[e-mail]> 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.
]
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
]
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <[e-mail]>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
]
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
]
] > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
]
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on.
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
]
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
]
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
]
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.

>> You claimed that your information came from looking at the contents of
>> the JDK, which didn't require running anything, Mike.

> I did not claim that all my information came from there, Dave.

I never said that you did say all of it came from there, Mike.  But
you did claim that some of it came from there.  I'm still waiting for
the name of the file that contains the alleged information.

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

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

From: [e-mail]               26-Oct-99 16:16:19
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: New Warp v4.5 Client...

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:08:39 -0500, Kelly Robinson wrote:

>That's great!  I love it when IBM foregoes mass CD production in favor of an
>ultra-expensive "We will haul our asses out there to install this product
>which you could easily do by yourself for a massive amount of money."
>

The "speicial bid" process has been in place for as long as I can remember.
The annoucement was a factual annoucement with no implication of oneway or
another.

>IBM is exploiting y'all once again.  And once again, I can sit back and
>laugh.
>

You mean like we don't all pay a Windows tax and get exploited by this other
company?   If this is the kind of things you need to get a kick, I really
feel sorry for you.

>Oh, should I also ask Steven King when his next horror novel will come out?
>:-)

Steven King's group is doing very well with what they are doing, thank you.
They don't need your approval.   At least his group made enough money to
justify sending a team to WarpStock and offered a number of highly technical
sessions.   I certainly learned a lot from his folks.

And your contribution is?

>Keep in mind that IBM also does 180 degree turnarounds at a moment's notice,
>too.

What 180 degree?




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

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

From: [e-mail]                          26-Oct-99 07:50:05
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Marty wrote:
>
> Dave Tholen wrote:
> >
> > Marty writes:
> >
> > > Mike Timbol wrote:
> >
> > >> I wrote:
> >
> > >>> Mike Timbol writes:
> >
> > >>>>>>> Read the rest of the article, Mike.
> >
> > >>>>>> I did, Dave.
> >
> > >>>>> You said you couldn't find it, Mike.  Do make up your mind.
> >
> > >>>> Dave, try and understand the concept that things change with time.
> >
> > >>> What took so long, Mike?
> >
> > >> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
> > >> that you were referencing.  Since that was the first time you provided
> > >> anything that could be searched on, that was the first time I was able
> > >> to find the article you were referring to.
> >
> > > Hm... sounds to me like Dave is playing another infantile game with you
> > > Mike.
> >
> > What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.
>
> How predictable.
>
> > In reality, it's Mike Timbol who is playing the game.
>
> Evidence, please.
>
> > Notice his latest lie.  Interesting that you didn't bother to comment on
it.
>
> Perhaps because said "lie" is non-existent.
>
> > > But how it sounds to me is irrelevant.
> >
> > Indeed.  So why did you bother to comment, Marty?
>
> Sarcasm shooting right over your head as usual.  I'm not surprised.

Marty,
A number of posts you've made have contained humorous moments.  Dave did
not seem to recognize them as such, or chose to interpret some or all of
them without the humorous ingredients.  Your "American Pie" was especially
good, I thought.

Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                      27-Oct-99 00:32:05
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7v54vh$[e-mail]>,
  "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> You are suggesting I am related to the MVP people?

Nope, he didn't... But you did! :)

Everybody reads what they want to read...

--
-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]                         27-Oct-99 00:59:07
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mark writes:

> Repeat after me.  The MVP program is a technical support program, not
> an advocacy program.

Did you bother to read the link provided by David Johnson?

>> http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/opinions/0,7802,2380951,00.html

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            26-Oct-99 21:44:22
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: MS is still afraid of OS/2

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

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>Marty wrote:
>>
>> Oops.  I thought you were.
>
>Gone, that is.
>
>>  Glad it isn't true.
>>
>> - Marty
>

Just busy, I'll reply to your 800+ line post later this week.
Sheesh!! That thing is a monster!

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          27-Oct-99 01:33:23
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>"Mike Ruskai" <[e-mail]>

>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:42:15 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
>
>>Columnist John Dvorak has posted a provocative analysis of Microsoft's
>>MVP online advocacy program which states:
>>
>>"The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many of
>>these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks. The
>>concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP home page
>>seems to be discounts of some sort."
>>
>>Read more at:
>>
>>http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/opinions/0,7802,2380951,00.html
>>
>>So...who were the Microsoft MVPs who hung out at COOA?????
>
>Well, take a look at who's no longer posting, now that the MVP program is
>over.  Steven Den Beste is one, and I don't think it's a mystery to anyone
>here that he was working for MS, directly or indirectly.

Steven Den Beste isn't on MS' payroll. I would know. I have to make
out the checks. Booga booga! (That ought to keep most of the OS/2
Advocates cowering under their beds and clutching rifles while
mumbling "they're after us... they're after us...." over and over --
not that I'm suggesting this is atypical behavior for them).

Incidentally, I understand that the MVP program isn't over. It's still
around. (Not that any competent shopper should need to grovel for
discounts on MS products. Hell, you can find bargains all over on such
mainstream products. It's the niche stuff like OS/2 software that is
hard to come by, often due to it being "dropped" with less aplomb than
any MVP program. Hey, how is your ColorWorks 2.0 doing? By all means,
please "Describe" it for me)

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          27-Oct-99 01:20:16
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: More Blatent Tholen Lies

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Marty <[e-mail]>

>Jeff Glatt wrote:
>>
>> >Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>
>> >The operative words being "did not."  Tholen's statement is accurate.  IF
he
>> >had said, "I DO not respond to you in this thread," then your point would
>> >be well taken.  However, since he said "did not" in his current reply,
then
>> >the past tense includes only prior posts in the thread, and not the reply
>> >you lifted the quote from.  You are trying to take Tholen's phrase, which
>> >clearly referred in the past tense to articles he'd written, and apply his
>> >words to the post that included the phrase.  For Tholen, that article
would
>> >have to have been referred to in the present tense while he was
constructing
>> >it.
>>
>> You know, it may not be a coincidence that "Bobo" disappeared almost
>> precisely when "Bennie Nelson" showed up. They have the exact same
>> vaudeville routine.
>
>Sorry, but I can't quite see that. BobO was an obnoxious, hateful,
>bigotted prick.

Sure he was... *after* people stopped buying his implausible claims
that he was some sort of level-headed, impartial, "jolly" observer who
just "happened" to think that Tholen made sense, just like Karel
happens to think that Tholen is "a nice guy" who is unfairly maligned,
and Bennie thinks that "Tholen always uses logic" whereas "his
detractors are emotionally blocked" and "are unskilled at logic".

As soon as Bobo revealed his true colors by running enough
interference for Tholen (and he did it in *exactly* the same inept way
that "Bennie" is doing it) and he realized that no one was buying his
pretense of "logical objectivity" any more, that's when he let out his
true, ugly, fanatical self. Believe me, some of these people actually
*do* think that Bill Gates is satan, and they can be demurely sipping
tea with their pinky extended one second -- insisting that they're
sane, rational, pragmatic people -- and then the next second they're
frothing at the mouth about some conspiracy theory that would even
make David Koresh look at them strangely, and defending obviously
mentally ill people based purely upon such bizarre holy crusades.

I've seen it happen.

Check out Bobo's initial posts here. They read *exactly* like
"Bennie's". We'll see how this develops. I'm not sure where it will
go, but I'm just saying that I *wouldn't* be totally surprised to see
another Bobo emerge here. The future has a way of mirroring the past
when the exact same actions/words are repeated, just like OS/2
Advocacy yielded the same results for OS/2 as the similiar tactics of
Amiga True Believers yielded for the Amiga.

History is a powerful force. When it starts repeating, you better
believe that it has a way of shaping what will come

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          26-Oct-99 08:49:25
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>


Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Bennie Nelson writes:
>
> > Marty wrote:
>
> >> Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> >>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>> Mike Timbol wrote:
>
> >>>>> I wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Read the rest of the article, Mike.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I did, Dave.
>
> >>>>>>>> You said you couldn't find it, Mike.  Do make up your mind.
>
> >>>>>>> Dave, try and understand the concept that things change with time.
>
> >>>>>> What took so long, Mike?
>
> >>>>> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
> >>>>> that you were referencing.  Since that was the first time you provided
> >>>>> anything that could be searched on, that was the first time I was able
> >>>>> to find the article you were referring to.
>
> >>>> Hm... sounds to me like Dave is playing another infantile game with you
> >>>> Mike.
>
> >>> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.
>
> >> How predictable.
>
> >>> In reality, it's Mike Timbol who is playing the game.
>
> >> Evidence, please.
>
> >>> Notice his latest lie.  Interesting that you didn't bother to comment on
it.
>
> >> Perhaps because said "lie" is non-existent.
>
> >>>> But how it sounds to me is irrelevant.
>
> >>> Indeed.  So why did you bother to comment, Marty?
>
> >> Sarcasm shooting right over your head as usual.  I'm not surprised.
>
> > Marty,
> > A number of posts you've made have contained humorous moments.
>
> What may seem humorous to a bystander won't necessarily be humorous to
> the person who is the target of abuse.
>
> > Dave did not seem to recognize them as such, or chose to interpret
> > some or all of them without the humorous ingredients.
>
> I've chosen to interpret the ones used to abuse me as abuse.
>
> > Your "American Pie" was especially good, I thought.
>
> Where did I indicate any interpretation of that so-called "humor"?

I don't recall if you posted a reply to the parody lyrics derived
from "American Pie".  Parody, of course, can be used for comical effect
or ridicule.  Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and
you replied to that one.  Based upon what I've read in your subsequent
posts, it seems that you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being
ridicule rather than humorous.

When I read Marty's posts originally, it seemed to me that he was
making an attempt at being funny, at your expense, of course, rather
than ridiculing you.  Given the antipathy Marty has expressed towards
you, I'm not surprised that you did not see it the same way I did.  My
post was not intended to be critical of you or Marty.  One of my
intentions for posting was to see if Marty would admit what his motives
were in posting the parodies: did he intend them to be humorous or for
ridicule.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                            27-Oct-99 01:42:21
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

> One question about your post: which version of Windows NT was available
> in 1992?

Windows NT 3.1 was the version. I started using Windows NT with the July '92
developer drop. I ended up using a mix of OS/2 up to version 2.1 and WFWG.
That was until Beta 2 of NT 3.1... and most folks know the rest of the
story...

Fact is that if VMware supported OS/2 as a guest, I would install and run
OS/2 today.

Dale


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 01:34:12
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

> Emphasis placed using brackets this time to make it more clear.

Brackets won't make your argument any less illogical, Lucien.

>> Once the toothpaste is out of the tube.......

I didn't write that, Lucien.  I see you've taken to lying about what
I've written.

>> 1)

I didn't write that either, Lucien, and the level of indentation
of the following indicates that I provided the quotations, yet I
did not.

>>>> [dt] The word "implements" does allow for [[[[either "some" or
>>>> [dt] "all"]]]] functionality, [[[[in the absence of any other
>>>> [dt] information]]]].

Amazing how you can put brackets around it and still not comprehend
it, Lucien.  There is no absence of other information in the present
situation.  Why do you think I qualified the statement with "in the
absence of other information"?

>> 2)

I didn't write that either, Lucien, and the level of indentation
of the following indicates that I provided the quotations, yet I
did not.

>> [dt] >>> No, I do not.  "Implements" by itself does not eliminate any
>> [dt] >>> ambiguity.  In the present case, [[[[the ambiguity]]]] is

I see how you chose to delete the rest of the sentence, which notes
that the ambiguity IS RESOLVED.  In other words, there is no ambiguity
in the present case.

>> 3)

I didn't write that either, Lucien, and the level of indentation
of the following indicates that I provided the quotations, yet I
did not.

>> [dt] > Still having reading comprehension problems, Lucien.  I just
>> [dt] > finished saying that [[[[the ambiguity]]]] is resolved.

>> ....it is very difficult to get it back in.

I didn't write that, Lucien.  I see you've taken to lying about what
I've written.

>> You lose.

I didn't write that, Lucien, but I certainly agree that you've lost.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 01:41:13
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Bennie Nelson writes:

>>>>> Marty wrote:

>>>>>> Dave Tholen wrote:

>>>>>>> Marty writes:

>>>>>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:

>>>>>>>>> I wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the rest of the article, Mike.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did, Dave.

>>>>>>>>>>>> You said you couldn't find it, Mike.  Do make up your mind.

>>>>>>>>>>> Dave, try and understand the concept that things change with time.

>>>>>>>>>> What took so long, Mike?

>>>>>>>>> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
>>>>>>>>> that you were referencing.  Since that was the first time you
provided
>>>>>>>>> anything that could be searched on, that was the first time I was
able
>>>>>>>>> to find the article you were referring to.

>>>>>>>> Hm... sounds to me like Dave is playing another infantile game with
you
>>>>>>>> Mike.

>>>>>>> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.

>>>>>> How predictable.

>>>>>>> In reality, it's Mike Timbol who is playing the game.

>>>>>> Evidence, please.

>>>>>>> Notice his latest lie.  Interesting that you didn't bother to comment
on it.

>>>>>> Perhaps because said "lie" is non-existent.

>>>>>>>> But how it sounds to me is irrelevant.

>>>>>>> Indeed.  So why did you bother to comment, Marty?

>>>>>> Sarcasm shooting right over your head as usual.  I'm not surprised.

>>>>> Marty,
>>>>> A number of posts you've made have contained humorous moments.

>>>> What may seem humorous to a bystander won't necessarily be humorous to
>>>> the person who is the target of abuse.

>>>>> Dave did not seem to recognize them as such, or chose to interpret
>>>>> some or all of them without the humorous ingredients.

>>>> I've chosen to interpret the ones used to abuse me as abuse.

>>>>> Your "American Pie" was especially good, I thought.

>>>> Where did I indicate any interpretation of that so-called "humor"?

>>> I don't recall if you posted a reply to the parody lyrics derived
>>> from "American Pie".

>> What were the lyrics?

>                    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....
>
> It took a while, but I found them.

Did you find any interpretation posted by me?  Did you find any
line-by-line response from me?

> The URL is:
>
>
http://x38.deja.com/[S0=90688c2f1898753]/getdoc.xp?AN=538722843.2&CONTEXT=94096
0691.1591803974&hitnum=1

>>> Parody, of course, can be used for comical effect or ridicule.

>> Part of Marty's "infantile game".

> I'd looked at his use of parody as attempts to inject some humor into the
> discussion.  Of course, it was all at your expense.  I do not criticize
> you for taking offense even though I would not have if I was the target.

What you would not have done is irrelevant.

>>> Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and you replied
>>> to that one.

>> Not line by line, as Marty alleged.

> Although I have not read every post in the threads, I have not seen any
> post that shows you answering any of the parodies line by line.  If you
> had, it would be simple for Marty to supply a DEJA URL for the post.

He tried that already, attempting to pass off his modified writings
as "song lyrics".

>>> Based upon what I've read in your subsequent posts, it seems that
>>> you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being ridicule rather
>>> than humorous.

>> That's the correct interpretation.

> The question I would like Marty to answer is whether he intended to
> be offensive or merely humorous.  Since you've taken offense at his
> words, for you there is no humor, regardless of what he intended.

Humor is subjective.

>>> When I read Marty's posts originally, it seemed to me that he was
>>> making an attempt at being funny, at your expense, of course, rather
>>> than ridiculing you.

>> The key words here are "at your expense".  That's abuse.

> Since you have found Marty's attempts at being humorous to be
> offensive, you view it that way.  If Marty merely meant to be
> humorous, it would be appropriate for him to step up and
> acknowledge that fact.

But that would support the notion that he is playing an "infantile
game", yet he's denied that.

>>> Given the antipathy Marty has expressed towards you, I'm not
>>> surprised that you did not see it the same way I did.  My
>>> post was not intended to be critical of you or Marty.

>> Too bad, as I wish some people would discourage Marty from polluting
>> this newsgroup with his "infantile game".  He's not accomplishing
>> anything useful.

> If he meant to ridicule you, then I agree that is not accomplishing
> anything useful.

He's not accomplishing anything useful from my perspective, regardless
of what he means.

>>> One of my intentions for posting was to see if Marty would admit what
>>> his motives were in posting the parodies: did he intend them to be
>>> humorous or for ridicule.

>> But Marty is a proven liar, thus you would have to take his written
>> response with a grain of salt.

> Marty has posted many useful articles in this and other newsgroups.

That doesn't change the fact that he is a proven liar.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 01:42:13
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: I hope you are entertained...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

David T. Johnson writes:

> Marty wrote:

>> For those of you that appreciate a good dose of Tholen hypocrisy but...

> [snip]
>
> I hope that threads like this are entertaining for you because that
> would be their only benefit.

I've already indicated as much to Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 01:45:19
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Roberto Alsina writes:

>>> Marty wrote:

>>>> Roberto Alsina wrote:

>>> [ Dave wrote garbage, as usual ]

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?

> If you can't see it, you probably won't accept the explanation.

Illogical, Roberto.  How about trying to answer the following
questions, which you've deleted every time I've asked them?

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?

>>>>> Poor pathetic lying kook Dave. He can't even keep that Eliza tone
>>>>> through the entire post.

>>>> Is he playing an infantile game with you Roberto?  It figures.

>>> And he is a really bad player, too.

>> Proving that you chatted with Eliza, using your own type of proof,
>> does not show that I'm a "really bad player", Roberto.

> People who are not playing infantile games don't care about being
> called bad players.

On what basis do you make that claim, Roberto?

> So you *are* playing an infantile game!

Illogical, Roberto.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 1997 16:56:36 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Eliza] What makes you believe that?

RA] Easy: as I have told you several times, you can't prove what a person
RA] thought or intended to do. You just can't prove the existence or
RA] non-existence of a mental image or abstraction!



Date: 9 Mar 1997 16:52:30 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Eliza] What makes you believe that?

RA] That there are two posts where you are replying to what is obviously the
RA] output of an Eliza or Eliza-like program. Want me to post them?



Date: 12 Mar 1997 01:07:21 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Eliza] Are you sure that those are mine?

RA] The address of the poster is yours. I am as sure as you are sure I posted
RA] that article I can't mention about a certain number and you.

Eliza] What makes you believe that?

RA] Believe what?

Eliza] What makes you believe that?

RA] It is pretty hard to do. At least it would be hard for me. Specially
RA] knowing *when* to make that mistake.



Date: 9 Mar 1997 17:05:30 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Eliza] What makes you believe that?

RA] You said nothing in your first post that could be taken as indication of
RA] suspicion.



Date: 15 Mar 1997 06:29:37 GMT
Message-ID: <5gdfkh$[e-mail]>

Eliza] Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

RA] Yes. Too much sex with too beautiful women.

Eliza] What makes you believe that?

RA] The dates in the articles.



If you question the identity of Eliza above, I suggest you take a closer
look at the article that you have pointed to as "evidence" that I
responded to Eliza without realizing it.  Look familiar, Roberto?

Have you enjoyed your chat with Eliza, Roberto?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            26-Oct-99 22:13:08
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

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

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>Mike Ruskai wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:42:15 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
>>
>> >Columnist John Dvorak has posted a provocative analysis of Microsoft's
>> >MVP online advocacy program which states:
>> >
>> >"The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many of
>> >these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks. The
>> >concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP home page
>> >seems to be discounts of some sort."
>> >
>> >Read more at:
>> >
>> >http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/opinions/0,7802,2380951,00.html
>> >
>> >So...who were the Microsoft MVPs who hung out at COOA?????
>>
>> Well, take a look at who's no longer posting, now that the MVP program is
>> over.  Steven Den Beste is one, and I don't think it's a mystery to anyone
>> here that he was working for MS, directly or indirectly.
>
>McCoy has also seemed to clam up.
>
>- Marty
>

Are you kidding? First, Steven stopped posting here a long time before the MVP

which has been reinstated. And two, are you kidding?

I had such high hopes for you Marty, but you insist on grouping yourself with
the fringe.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 02:03:24
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: I hope you are entertained...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> David T. Johnson wrote:

>> Marty wrote:

>>> For those of you that appreciate a good dose of Tholen hypocrisy but...

>> [snip]
>>
>> I hope that threads like this are entertaining for you because that
>> would be their only benefit.

> Agreed.

The fact that you're continuing with something whose only benefit, as
you just agreed, is their entertainment value for you, is further
evidence that you are simply playing an "infantile game", Marty.  Yet
you denied it.  Typical inconsistency.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 22:18:26
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >Mike Ruskai wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:42:15 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >> >Columnist John Dvorak has posted a provocative analysis of Microsoft's
> >> >MVP online advocacy program which states:
> >> >
> >> >"The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many of
> >> >these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks. The
> >> >concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP home page
> >> >seems to be discounts of some sort."
> >> >
> >> >Read more at:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/opinions/0,7802,2380951,00.html
> >> >
> >> >So...who were the Microsoft MVPs who hung out at COOA?????
> >>
> >> Well, take a look at who's no longer posting, now that the MVP program is
> >> over.  Steven Den Beste is one, and I don't think it's a mystery to
anyone
> >> here that he was working for MS, directly or indirectly.
> >
> >McCoy has also seemed to clam up.
> >
> >- Marty
> >
>
> Are you kidding? First, Steven stopped posting here a long time before the
MVP
> which has been reinstated. And two, are you kidding?
>
> I had such high hopes for you Marty, but you insist on grouping yourself
with
> the fringe.

Heh.  Simple psychology David.  I knew that would snap you to
attention.  ;-)

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 01:57:09
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:09
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>> You never proved that I am a liar, Marty.  However, I did prove that
>>>> you are a liar when you wrote:
>>>>
>>>> M] The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is evidence
>>>> M] of your own infantile game
>>>>
>>>> I reproduced an admission of being wrong,

>>> I'm sorry Dave, but I missed it.

>> Yet another example of your reading comprehension problem.

> My you are a jackass.

Typical invective.  Typical fallback when someone lacks a logical
argument.

> Please reread the statement you quoted from me.

Unnecessary, Marty.

> Let me highlight it for you:
>
> The fact that you can never admit when **you** are wrong is evidence of
> your own infantile game.

It's not a fact, Marty, as I've proven.  Of course, you chose to delete
the evidence.  Too embarassing for you, eh Marty?

>>> Which thread was this in?

>> You mean you don't know?

> Why else would I have asked?

To continue playing your "infantile game", Marty.

>> You've already posted a response to the article where the evidence
appeared.

> Is it this thread?

Does it matter, Marty?  You've expanded to six threads now:

   Advocacy's Mosquito...
   Die Jest 3 - With a Vengeance
   I hope you are entertained
   More Blatant Tholen Lies
   Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
   Tholen Digest II - Electic Boogaloo

Having trouble keeping track of what you post where, Marty?

> I'm not good at guessing games.

No guessing is necessary, Marty.  You already responded to the posting that
contained the evidence.

> I find them to be quite infantile.

No guessing is necessary, Marty.  You already responded to the posting that
contained the evidence.

>> Interestingly, your response is 382 lines shorter than the article to
>> which you were responding, thus you engaged in a significant amount of
>> deletion.  That's your problem, Marty, not mine.

> I guess you'd prefer I didn't retract the statement then, since you
> haven't produced a shred of proof to counter it.

On the contrary, I produced sufficient proof.  You simply chose to
delete the proof.

> Why haven't you readded all 382 lines and responded with "Note: no
> response"?

I "readded" the evidence and made you look bad, Marty.

> Have you grown out of that infantile game?

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing an "infantile game",
Marty.

>>> As I said (and you omitted), I will be glad to be proven wrong on this
>>> point.

>> I already did prove you wrong on that point, Marty.  You chose to
>> delete the evidence.  How convenient.  But yet another example of
>> your own dishonesty.

> Is it this thread?

Does it matter, Marty?  You've expanded to six threads now:

   Advocacy's Mosquito...
   Die Jest 3 - With a Vengeance
   I hope you are entertained
   More Blatant Tholen Lies
   Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
   Tholen Digest II - Electic Boogaloo

Having trouble keeping track of what you post where, Marty?

> I'm not good at guessing games.

No guessing is necessary, Marty.  You already responded to the posting that
contained the evidence.

> I guess you'd prefer I didn't retract the statement then.

You guessed wrong again, Marty.

>>> Please humor me and point me to this answer without bullshit
>>> deflections.

>> You already posted a response to the article where the evidence
>> appeared, Marty.  You don't need to be humored.  You need to be
>> shown as the liar you are.

> Note: bullshit deflection.

Illogical, given that there is no deflection at all, Marty.

> The fact that you can never admit when **you** are wrong is evidence of
> your own infantile game.

It's no fact, Marty.  A fact is that you lied about that.  A fact is
that you deleted the evidence that you lied about that.  A fact is that
you're playing dumb by asking questions like "Is it this thread?".

> This statement stands.

It does not, Marty.

> Your evidence was not the evidence requested or required, as usual.

How would you know, Marty, given that you allegedly haven't seen it?

> Have a nice life Dave.

Better than yours.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 22:16:14
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> > Have a nice life Dave.
>
> Better than yours.

I just wanted to take this opportunity to say:
BWAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Perhaps you do have a sense of humor after all.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 02:02:04
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Die Jest 3 - With a Vengeance

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Here's another gem.

Illogical, Marty.

> Editorials not present in the original article are noted in
> square brackets.

Why does it take you two attempts to respond to the same material,
Marty?

> The original article is somewhere in the depths of the Advocacy's
> Mosquito thread.

Irrelevant, Marty.

> ------------------------

I guess it was too much trouble for you to add a level of indentation
to the following so that the proper attribution could be more easily
determined by the casual reader.

>>>>>> Could it be because you are a blatent hypocrite with a pronounced
double
>>>>>> standard?

>>>>> No, it couldn't.

>>>> It's within the realm of possibility for sure.

>>> It's still not the truth.

>> M] Could it be ...?

> Why not quote the rest, Marty.
>
> [of course the rest is quoted a few lines above -- "Could it be because
> you are a blat[a]nt ..."]

Then why quote any of it at all, Marty?

>> DT] No, it couldn't.

> I know what I wrote, Marty.

>> It's within the realm of possibility for sure.

> It's still not the truth, Marty.
>
> [whether truth or not, it is obviously in the realm of possibility]

It's still not the truth, Marty.

>> Your "No, it couldn't" is incorrect Dave.

> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
>
> [the punchline]

I see you still haven't answered the question.

>> Don't embarass yourself further by denying or deflecting that fact.

> I'm not embarassing myself at all, Marty.  Rather, you are by continuing
> with your lies and your "infantile game".
>
> [note the deflection]

The truth about what you are doing is not a "deflection", Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 02:05:24
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: More Blatent Tholen Lies

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Bennie Nelson wrote:

>> Marty,
>>
>> Your reply to my post repeats the same question several times, so I will
>> provide one answer here at the front of this post.

> Thank you.  That is the style of a normal, well adjusted, relaxed
> individual.

In contrast to your style, Marty.

>> I have read SOME but not ALL of the thread.  That is not the point.  Your
>> article to which I responded was framed as a "self-contained" post that
>> you claimed was "one for the archives."

> Correct.

>> So, I simply examined your "ONE" for the archives and found it to be
lacking.
>> It simply did not make the point you were trying to make.  You've tacitly
>> admitted that by repeatedly asking if I have read the thread.

> I asked if you've looked at it.  However, point taken.  The archived
> version should have 2 more levels of back quotation to be completely
> self-contained.

It needs more than that to provide the proper context, Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 27-Oct-99 02:22:24
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7v43nh$56f$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
>> that you were referencing.
>
>You're a proven liar, Mike.  I want you to address the evidence before
>we go any further.  Your diversionary tactic isn't going to help you.

I addressed the "evidence" in the other post, Dave.

Obviously, you've abandoned all of the weak arguments you were trying
to make in this subthread, and choose to concentrate on what you feel
is your strongest argument.  Fine with me.

     - Mike

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 02:12:14
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> How does one practice "preferring you to stop posting"?

>> By stopping your posting altogether, Marty.

> Illogical, as this offers no impediment to you posting in the future.

Illogical, given that I didn't say anything about an impediment to me
posting in the future.

>> ] >>> Incorrect.  The fact that you can never admit when you are wrong is
>> ] >>> evidence of your own infantile game,
>> ]
>> ] >> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of such a fact, Marty,
but
>> ] >> I have successfully demonstrated the fallacy of the claim to all the
>> ] >> others who have attempted to use it.
>> ]
>> ] > I would like to be proven wrong on this.  Please demonstrate.
>> ]
>> ] Here we go again:
>> ]
>> ] ] Date: 10 Dec 1997 00:00:00 GMT
>> ] ] Message-ID: <66l54r$[e-mail]>
>> ] ]
>> ] ] DougWMI writes:
>> ] ]
>> ] ] >> "I've been dead before."
>> ] ] >>   --Mr. Spock, Star Trek V (The Final Frontier)
>> ] ]
>> ] ] > Actually, Spock said this in Star Trek VI, not V.
>> ] ]
>> ] ] The Undiscovered Country.  I stand corrected.

> Thank you for providing this.

I provided it long ago, Marty.  Several times.  Interesting that you
never ran across it when reading 100 percent of my postings to reach
the erroneous conclusion that I never discuss issues.  Obviously you
are a liar.

I also note that you never answered my question about whether the
functionality of Java 1.2 implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an
issue or not, in your mind.

> I missed it before and stand corrected on the point.

You did more than miss it, Marty.  You chose to delete the evidence
the last time I provided it in response to your request for a
demonstration.  Amazing how you think you can make a coherent argument
without reading the entirety of what I've written in response to your
lies.

> I will modify my statement to be correct by saying that you
> can never admit when your logic is wrong.

Yet another lie.  Truly amazing how you hop from one lie to the
next.

I do note how your postings have gotten significantly shorter today,
Marty.  Suffering from the embarassment that you claimed you weren't
suffering from?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 02:16:26
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Bennie Nelson wrote:

>> I wrote:

>>> Bennie Nelson wrote:

>>>> Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and you replied
>>>> to that one.

>>> Not line by line, as Marty alleged.

>> Although I have not read every post in the threads, I have not seen any
>> post that shows you answering any of the parodies line by line.  If you
>> had, it would be simple for Marty to supply a DEJA URL for the post.

>
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538247932&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&hitnum=7

You tried that so-called "evidence" once before, Marty.  Those aren't
"song lyrics".

>
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538459252&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=14

Here's the actual content, Marty:

] 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.

No song lyrics in that one either, Marty.

>>>> Based upon what I've read in your subsequent posts, it seems that
>>>> you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being ridicule rather
>>>> than humorous.

>>> That's the correct interpretation.

>> The question I would like Marty to answer is whether he intended to
>> be offensive or merely humorous.

> If I had intended to be offensive, I could have done a much better job
> then what I have done.

If you had intended to be truthful, you could have done a much better job
than what you have done.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 27-Oct-99 02:28:00
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7v43jv$56f$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>Well, I had two hits.  Not only did Mike delete the evidence, which is
>one of the possibilities I suggested, he also continued to lie, which
>is another one of the possibilities I suggested.
>
>Let's get right to the evidence, avoiding all of Timbol's diversionary
>tactics:

Cute trick, Dave.  Delete everything I wrote that explained why you
are wrong, then restate your claim that I am wrong.  Then claim that
all of the other parts where I prove that even *more* of your claims
are wrong represent "diversionary tactics", and refuse to address them.
OK.

Of course, what's obvious is that you've chosen the one point where
you think you have the strongest case, and abandoned all of your
other arguments.  Now, I'll show you why your "strongest case" is
pathetically weak.

>MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
>MT] you deleted it,
>
>DT] I never deleted that section, Mike
>
>MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
>MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.
>
>Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
>its entirety:

Note that I did not refer to your "original response", I referred to
your response to my post to Joseph.

The post of Joseph's I'm referring to was <[e-mail]>

My response included this paragraph:

  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.

Your response (in post <7uqpvs$2ns$[e-mail]>) began like this:

  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.

Note that you deleted all the text that referred to judging products by
their version number.  Exactly as I stated.

>As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
>because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
>because I deleted most of his post.

You did delete most of the post, Dave, as I just demonstrated.

>> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above
>
>Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
>appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
>another one of your lies.

On the contrary, in article <7uqpvs$2ns$[e-mail]>, you began
with "Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:" because you deleted
everything in the post that I was responding to.  As you say, check
the posting available in the deja.com archive.

In fact, that particular attribution was preserved at the top of
my previous reply, yet you've chosen to delete it in a feeble attempt
to cover your tracks.

>>> You claimed that your information came from looking at the contents of
>>> the JDK, which didn't require running anything, Mike.
>
>> I did not claim that all my information came from there, Dave.
>
>I never said that you did say all of it came from there, Mike.  But
>you did claim that some of it came from there.  I'm still waiting for
>the name of the file that contains the alleged information.

Which alleged information are you referring to?  The description of
the JDK comes from IBM's web site, as I've told you several times
already.  The information about which classes are in the JDK comes
from the JDK itself, not a particular file within the JDK.

     - Mike


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 02:27:14
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> Have a nice life Dave.

>> Better than yours.

> I just wanted to take this opportunity to say:
> BWAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Illogical, Marty.

> Perhaps you do have a sense of humor after all.

More reasonable than yours, Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 02:26:20
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on Dave's part.

Yet another lie on your part, Marty.  You just don't want to let it be,
do you, Marty?

And which Mike are you referring to?  Mike Timbol?  I just recently
proved that he is a liar as well.  He accused me of deleting most of
his reply to Joseph Coughlan, claiming that that was the reason my
reply was so short.  In reality, Timbol himself deleted most of
Joseph's posting, quoting only a single line in his response, which
is the real reason that my follow-up was so short.  Interestingly,
there are no responses from Mike today in that thread.  The silence
is damning.

> Either that or he just plain doesn't know the song (which would be
> perfectly acceptable), but he hasn't and probably never will own up to
> that.

Obviously you don't know the "song", given that the so-called "lyric"
that precedes it in your posting is:

"My killfile is programmed to receive."

and before that, the "lyric" is allegedly:

"Relax, Mr. Tholen"

> (additional context and evidence was removed-

Trying to hide behind your deletion tactics, eh Marty?

> those interested in the rest of the idiocy can see it a few hundred
> lines down in the "Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind
> again!!" thread)

That's where they can see the evidence for your lies, Marty.

I see you're appending text again without adding a level of
indentation, thereby creating the potential for the correct
attribution to be misunderstood by the casual reader.  But
even that wouldn't completely solve the problem, as you've also
screwed up the correct attributions.  Note that the URL and
the line that follows have the same level of indentation, yet
you wrote one and I wrote the other.

>>> ] > You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.

>> **SL**

> On what basis do you call that a song lyric, Marty?

>>> ]
>>> ] Illogical.
>>>
>>> There's no line-by-line response to song lyrics in that article either,
>>> Marty.

> --- meanwhile, back at the farm ---

>>>> DT] I pointed out the illogic of your usage of those lyrics as responses
>>>> DT] to me.  I said nothing about the lyrics themselves.

>>> Where did I say that, Marty?  Certainly not in response to those two
>>> posts, because there aren't any song lyrics in those two posts.

>
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538655385&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=16
>
> That's not a response to those two posts, Marty.

>> This came in response to my rendition of "Hotel California" by the
>> Eagles.

> Where I didn't respond line by line either, Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 02:28:26
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

David H. McCoy writes:

> Steven stopped posting here a long time before the MVP

One can see the handwriting on the wall.

> which has been reinstated.

Microsoft flip-flopping?  Interesting.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            26-Oct-99 22:52:22
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

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

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>>
>> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>> >Mike Ruskai wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:42:15 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Columnist John Dvorak has posted a provocative analysis of Microsoft's
>> >> >MVP online advocacy program which states:
>> >> >
>> >> >"The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many of
>> >> >these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks. The
>> >> >concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP home page
>> >> >seems to be discounts of some sort."
>> >> >
>> >> >Read more at:
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/opinions/0,7802,2380951,00.html
>> >> >
>> >> >So...who were the Microsoft MVPs who hung out at COOA?????
>> >>
>> >> Well, take a look at who's no longer posting, now that the MVP program
is
>> >> over.  Steven Den Beste is one, and I don't think it's a mystery to
anyone
>> >> here that he was working for MS, directly or indirectly.
>> >
>> >McCoy has also seemed to clam up.
>> >
>> >- Marty
>> >
>>
>> Are you kidding? First, Steven stopped posting here a long time before the
MVP
>> which has been reinstated. And two, are you kidding?
>>
>> I had such high hopes for you Marty, but you insist on grouping yourself
with
>> the fringe.
>
>Heh.  Simple psychology David.  I knew that would snap you to
>attention.  ;-)
>
>- Marty
>

I already answered your "thought you were gone" post, so I would say
experiment
is a failure. You do realized that, generally speaking, I ignore more post
than
I answer.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 27-Oct-99 02:40:02
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <[e-mail]>,
Bennie Nelson  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol wrote:
>>
>> In article <7v1eku$ev7$[e-mail]>,
>>  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >Mike Timbol writes:

>> >>>>> Balderdash, Mike.  How did you manage to get inside Joseph's head to
>> >>>>> know what he intended?
>> >
>> >>>> "Implied" does not mean "intended".  Go look up the word.
>> >
>> >>> Irrelevant, Mike.  I didn't claim that "implied" means "intended".
>> >
>> >> Your question above demonstrates your misunderstanding of the word.
>> >
>> >It does no such thing, Mike.
>>
>> Yes, it does.  Your paragraph below demonstrates your misunderstanding
>> yet again.
>>
>> >All you have to go on is what Joseph
>> >actually wrote.  He cannot imply something that he actually wrote,
>> >because implication is indirect.  Thus he can imply only that which
>> >he did not write.  Now, if he did not write it, then how can you know
>> >what he did not write without getting inside his head?
>>
>> Your paragraph above is incorrect: I can also know what logically follows
>> from what he actually wrote.  If he wrote "A Mustang is faster than a VW
>> Beetle and a Porsche 911 is faster than a Mustang", he's implying that a
>> Porsche 911 is faster than a VW beetle.  If he wrote "My car is the
>> same color as a ripe strawberry", he's implying that his car is some
>> sort of red color.
>>
>> Did he actually *write* "a Porsche 911 is faster than a VW beetle"?  No.
>> Did he actually *write* "my car is the same color red as a strawberry?"
No.
>> Do I need to get "inside his head" to know that he's implying those
>> things? No.
>>
>> Again, Dave, go look up the word.
>
>Bad example, Mike.  This is simply applying the mathematical law: if A > B,
>and B > C, then A > C.  There's no implication here: it's the law.

If one group of statements means that another statement is true,
then the first group implies that the latter statement, since the latter
statement was not stated explicitly.

Thus, you often have the logical notion that "A implies B".  That means
that "B" logically follows from "A", whether by mathematical law or
otherwise.

>Bennie Nelson

     - Mike

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          26-Oct-99 09:48:15
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: More Blatent Tholen Lies

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Marty,

Your reply to my post repeats the same question several times, so I will
provide one answer here at the front of this post.  I have read SOME but
not ALL of the thread.  That is not the point.  Your article to which I
responded was framed as a "self-contained" post that you claimed was "one
for the archives."  So, I simply examined your "ONE" for the archives
and found it to be lacking.  It simply did not make the point you were
trying to make.  You've tacitly admitted that by repeatedly asking if I
have read the thread.  Your own post made the claim that I would not
have to have read the thread to get the point you were asserting.  You
said all anyone would need to do was to read this "one for the archives."

In another thread you helped me to make a point that I admitted I had
not done well in making, and I thanked you sincerely for that.  In this
thread, I was trying to return the favor.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

> Have you looked at the thread in question Bennie?  You are quite
> incorrect.
>

Marty wrote:
>
> Bennie Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > For those of you that appreciate a good dose of Tholen hypocrisy but
> > > have grown weary of length postings, I reproduce the following concise,
> > > self-contained, blatent lie told by Tholen which he refused to admit
> > > (lifted from the depths of the "Advocacy's Mosquito" thread).  This is
> > > fairly conclusive evidence of a mental illness, or at the very least, an
> > > infantile game played by the wacky professor.  This is one for the
> > > archives.  ;-)
> > >
> > > - Marty
> > >
> > > --------------------------------
> > >
> > > > >>> Prove that I am following you around Dave.
> > > >
> > > > >> I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.
> > > >
> > > > > That's a blatent lie.
> > > >
> > > > Prove it, if you think you can, Marty.
> > >
> > > Please stop embarassing yourself.
> > >
> > > M] Prove that I am following you around Dave. <== my response to you
> > > D] I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty.  <== your response to
> > > me
> > > M] That's a blatent lie. <== my response to you
> > >
> > > "I did not respond to you in this thread, Marty." was in response to
> > > "Prove that I am following you around Dave.", stated by me in this
> > > thread.
> >
> > The operative words being "did not."  Tholen's statement is accurate.
>
> Sorry, but not quite.  Tholen's responsed to me to say those things.  If
> he were not responding to me, then he wouldn't have used my name.  "Did
> not" and "do not" are irrelevant.  He responded to me in that very
> thread multiple times, thus making a mistake.  Don't get me wrong,
> people make mistakes and I am perfectly tolerant of them.  Tholen,
> however, will never admit his error, even when it is so simple and
> blatent, which speaks for itself.
>
> > IF he had said, "I DO not respond to you in this thread," then your point
> > would be well taken.  However, since he said "did not" in his current
reply,
> > then the past tense includes only prior posts in the thread,
>
> Have you looked at the thread in question Bennie?  You are quite
> incorrect.
>
> > and not the reply you lifted the quote from.  You are trying to take
> > Tholen's phrase, which clearly referred in the past tense to articles
> > he'd written, and apply his words to the post that included the phrase.
> >
> > For Tholen, that article would have to have been referred to in the
present
> > tense while he was constructing it.
>
> Have you looked at the thread in question Bennie?  You are quite
> incorrect.
>
> > For the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that the earlier
> > incarnation of "Advocacy's Mosquito" is not relevant.
> >
> > > Your failure to admit a mistake this blatent shocked even me and tells
> > > me everything further I need to know about your character and your brand
> > > of "logic".
> >
> > Will you admit you misunderstood his meaning because you misunderstood
> > the implication of the tense he used?
>
> Have you looked at the thread in question Bennie?  You are quite
> incorrect.
>
> I have simply subjected his own words to the kind of evaluation which he
> has repeatedly subjected my words as well as many other people.  He can
> dish it, but he surely can't take it.
>
> - Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 22:51:19
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> I do note how your postings have gotten significantly shorter today,
> Marty.  Suffering from the embarassment that you claimed you weren't
> suffering from?

Actually, I've been rather ill and rather bored lately as a result.  As
I am getting better, I have better things to do.  So much for your "my
life is better than yours" claim.

Any embarassment you claim I am suffering from can't even compare in
magnitude to what you must be suffering from even still attempting to
persist that you have not responded to song lyrics.  By all means keep
it up.  There may be a few people that still aren't laughing at you.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 22:59:14
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on Dave's part.
>
> And which Mike are you referring to?

Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.

> Interestingly, there are no responses from Mike [Timbol] today in that
thread.
> The silence is damning.

Damn him for having better things to do.  You've obviously jumped the
gun in your uneasy impatience waiting for his reply.  Relax Dave.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 02:54:22
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
>>> that you were referencing.

>> You're a proven liar, Mike.  I want you to address the evidence before
>> we go any further.  Your diversionary tactic isn't going to help you.

> I addressed the "evidence" in the other post, Dave.

On the contrary, you deleted the evidence in the other post, Mike.
But I restored it in my follow-up, as well as below.

> Obviously, you've abandoned all of the weak arguments you were trying
> to make in this subthread,

Impossible, given that my arguments are not weak, Mike.

> and choose to concentrate on what you feel is your strongest argument.

I've chosen to concentrate on the original issue, about which you are
continuing to lie, Mike.  See below for the evidence.

> Fine with me.

Do note that I intend to persist until you admit that you've lied, Mike.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: [e-mail]
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$[e-mail]>
]
] 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.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$[e-mail]>
]
] In article <[e-mail]>, Joseph  <[e-mail]> 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.
]
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
]
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <[e-mail]>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
]
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
]
] > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
]
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on.
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
]
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
]
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
]
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 02:51:02
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>> Well, I had two hits.  Not only did Mike delete the evidence, which is
>> one of the possibilities I suggested, he also continued to lie, which
>> is another one of the possibilities I suggested.
>>
>> Let's get right to the evidence, avoiding all of Timbol's diversionary
>> tactics:

> Cute trick, Dave.  Delete everything I wrote that explained why you
> are wrong,

I'm not wrong, Mike, therefore I could not have deleted any such
explanation.  Meanwhile, I notice how you've deleted everything I
wrote that explained why you are wrong.

> then restate your claim that I am wrong.

On the contrary, I proved that you are wrong, Mike, using actual
quotations of entire articles.

> Then claim that all of the other parts where I prove that even *more*
> of your claims are wrong represent "diversionary tactics",

If you go back to my first posting in this thread, Mike, you will see
the one and only issue I was addressing.  Everything else you've
brought up is in fact a diversionary tactic.

> and refuse to address them.

How ironic, coming from the person refusing to address the fact that
he lied.

>> MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
>> MT] you deleted it,
>>
>> DT] I never deleted that section, Mike
>>
>> MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
>> MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.
>>
>> Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
>> its entirety:

> Note that I did not refer to your "original response", I referred to
> your response to my post to Joseph.

That happens to be my "original response" in this thread, Mike.

> You did delete most of the post, Dave, as I just demonstrated.

Amazing that you still persist with the same old lie, Mike.
Interesting that you deleted the evidence (which I've reinserted
below).

>>> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

>> Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
>> appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
>> another one of your lies.

> On the contrary, in article <7uqpvs$2ns$[e-mail]>,

How incredibly ironic.  So soon after you complained about not being
able to search on a message ID, all you choose to provide is a
message ID.  Hypocrite.  I'll do one better, Mike.  Here's a URL
that was derived by asking deja.com to list every posting made by
me in the Navigator 4.7 thread, sorted by date:

http://x25.deja.com/qs.xp?ST=PS&svcclass=dnyr&QRY=Mike+Timbol+writes&defaultOp=
AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&subjects=Navigator+4.7+is+available&groups=comp
.os.os2.advocacy&authors=tholen*&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=date&maxhits=100

Take a look at the earliest posting, Mike, and note how it coincides
with what I've reproduced below.

> you began with "Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:"

Not according to deja.com, Mike.

> because you deleted everything in the post that I was responding to.

On the contrary, YOU deleted all but one line of Joseph's posting,
Mike.

> As you say, check the posting available in the deja.com archive.

I've already done that, Mike.

>>>> You claimed that your information came from looking at the contents of
>>>> the JDK, which didn't require running anything, Mike.

>>> I did not claim that all my information came from there, Dave.

>> I never said that you did say all of it came from there, Mike.  But
>> you did claim that some of it came from there.  I'm still waiting for
>> the name of the file that contains the alleged information.

> Which alleged information are you referring to?

The contents you claimed to have looked at, Mike.  Don't you remember
claiming what was not in the JDK on the basis of looking at the contents?

Now, to reinser the evidence that you chose to delete:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: [e-mail]
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$[e-mail]>
]
] 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.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$[e-mail]>
]
] In article <[e-mail]>, Joseph  <[e-mail]> 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.
]
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
]
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <[e-mail]>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
]
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
]
] > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
]
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on.
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
]
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
]
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
]
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 03:02:28
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on Dave's part.

>> And which Mike are you referring to?

> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.

What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
better than you, Marty?

>> Interestingly, there are no responses from Mike [Timbol] today in
>> that thread.  The silence is damning.

> Damn him for having better things to do.

Actually, I wrote too soon.  Only moments after writing the above,
two postings from Mike showed up on our server, much later in the
day than has been his practice during the recent thread.

> You've obviously jumped the gun in your uneasy impatience waiting
> for his reply.

There's no impatience on my part, Marty.

> Relax Dave.

What makes you think I'm not relaxed, Marty?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                     27-Oct-99 03:00:10
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Marty writes:

>> I do note how your postings have gotten significantly shorter today,
>> Marty.  Suffering from the embarassment that you claimed you weren't
>> suffering from?

> Actually, I've been rather ill and rather bored lately as a result.

Your illness and boredom are a result of your embarassment, Marty?
That's your problem.  You shouldn't embarass yourself.

> As I am getting better, I have better things to do.

A convenient excuse.

> So much for your "my life is better than yours" claim.

Illogical, Marty.

> Any embarassment you claim I am suffering from can't even compare in
> magnitude to what you must be suffering from even still attempting to
> persist that you have not responded to song lyrics.

You're erroneously presupposing the existence of embarassment on my
part, Marty.

> By all means keep it up.

You're still erroneously presupposing the existence of embarassment
on my part, Marty.

> There may be a few people that still aren't laughing at you.

The laughs you hear are directed toward you, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                26-Oct-99 23:38:20
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (tholenbot)

In article <7v443q$8d8$[e-mail]>, Dave "Bennett" Tholen
([e-mail]) wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
>
> > Why do you say that?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?

> > Can you elaborate on that?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?

> > Are you sure that is the real reason?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?

> > Are you positive that is the real reason?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?

> > I would appreciate it if you would continue.
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?

> > Are you certain that this is the real reason?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?

> > What makes you believe what makes I believe this?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?

> > Maybe my life that I am going through all this have something to do
with this.
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?

> > Go on, don't be afraid.
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?

> > Are you absolutely sure that is the real reason?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?

> > Are you sure that is the real reason?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?


> > I need a little more detail please.
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?

> > You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?

> > Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?

> > Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
right back at you?

> > Is it because of my sex life that I am going through all this that you say
> > I do not approve phrases either?
>
> Don't ask me.

Don't tell me what to do.  I am the psychiatrist here!  Maybe your plans
have something to do with this.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                              26-Oct-99 22:48:27
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: ISP's and OS/2 Warp

From: "Craig Miller" <[e-mail]>

Just for you knowledge there are some ISP's still working with OS/2 Warp and
helping customers with it. check out www.oz-online.net and there in Kansas.

In News they talk about it and in software the have OS/2 stuff also!

Craig Miller


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     26-Oct-99 21:09:17
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:13
Subj: Re: Put up or shut up

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Dale Ross wrote:

> > One question about your post: which version of Windows NT was available
> > in 1992?
>
> Windows NT 3.1 was the version. I started using Windows NT with the July '92
> developer drop. I ended up using a mix of OS/2 up to version 2.1 and WFWG.
> That was until Beta 2 of NT 3.1... and most folks know the rest of the
> story...
>
> Fact is that if VMware supported OS/2 as a guest, I would install and run
> OS/2 today.

Fascinating.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     26-Oct-99 21:18:25
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:14
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Brad BARCLAY wrote:

> Kelly Robinson wrote:
> > Oh, I went to windows because I was royally pissed at IBM (I was an OS/2
> > user for over 4 years.  Fortunately, IBM showed me how stupid I was) and
the
> > fact Windows has the APPLICATIONS I need and contrary to dissentary
belief,
> > NT is quite stable and considerably faster than the 16/32-bit OS I used
> > previous to it.  (Applications, by the way, are the point of using a
> > computer.

>         The refrain "it's the APPLICATIONS stupid" is pedestrian.  It's also
> wrong.  Data is what is important - everything else is just an interface
> to manipulate that data.

I suppose you're going to try to tell us that a productive system is one that
works year-in-and-out rather than one that has the most updates and upgrades!!
:^)

I liken the focus on software updates and applications to pokeman.  I see the
same
kind of excitement in a pokeman collector like my nephew as I do in an
software
hobbiest.   At the end of the day it is what you did, not with what and and
with
what version.  Sometimes it is hard to se MS and it's advocates as anything
but
hobbiest, focusing on the technology and brand rather than on the work that
justified the computer in the first place.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                27-Oct-99 00:17:28
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:14
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Mike Ruskai" <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 01:33:46 GMT, Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>"Mike Ruskai" <[e-mail]>
>
>>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:42:15 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>Columnist John Dvorak has posted a provocative analysis of Microsoft's
>>>MVP online advocacy program which states:
>>>
>>>"The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many of
>>>these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks. The
>>>concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP home page
>>>seems to be discounts of some sort."
>>>
>>>Read more at:
>>>
>>>http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/opinions/0,7802,2380951,00.html
>>>
>>>So...who were the Microsoft MVPs who hung out at COOA?????
>>
>>Well, take a look at who's no longer posting, now that the MVP program is
>>over.  Steven Den Beste is one, and I don't think it's a mystery to anyone
>>here that he was working for MS, directly or indirectly.
>
>Steven Den Beste isn't on MS' payroll. I would know. I have to make
>out the checks. Booga booga! (That ought to keep most of the OS/2
>Advocates cowering under their beds and clutching rifles while
>mumbling "they're after us... they're after us...." over and over --
>not that I'm suggesting this is atypical behavior for them).

Reading comprehension isn't one of your strongsuits, I see.

>Incidentally, I understand that the MVP program isn't over. It's still
>around. (Not that any competent shopper should need to grovel for
>discounts on MS products. Hell, you can find bargains all over on such
>mainstream products. It's the niche stuff like OS/2 software that is
>hard to come by, often due to it being "dropped" with less aplomb than
>any MVP program. Hey, how is your ColorWorks 2.0 doing? By all means,
>please "Describe" it for me)

Never bothered with Describe.  Ami Pro is still my favorite, and then
there's Word Pro, and Starwriter, among a few others.

CW 2.0, incidentally, works quite well.  Does almost everything I need to
do with images (and what it doesn't, other programs can).  And I got it at
a bargain price, too.

MS software, in contrast, tends to be very expensive, despite what you
claim.  Getting free software (which is what the MVP program amounts to)
is enough to tempt all sorts of oddly-motivated people.

McCoy isn't one of them, of course.  He's here because of a psychosis
which requires him to denigrate what has rejected, in favor of what he has
chosen.

Den Beste, on the other hand, was clearly acting on a professional basis,
whatever form of payment he received.



 - Mike

Remove 'spambegone' to send e-mail.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     26-Oct-99 21:34:13
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:14
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Mark wrote:

> Repeat after me.  The MVP program is a technical support program, not
> an advocacy program.  The MVP program is used only on MS's own news
> server (which does get gated into the general usenet, but it
> originates on MS's servers) and only in the microsoft.public.* groups.
>
> What you are referring to is the fabled "astroturfing" which, if it
> does exist, is totally unrelated to MVP's.  MVP's are volunteers who
> are unpaid.  Suggesting that getting discounts is a form of "Payment"
> is silly.  Lots of people get discounts on things (such as MSDN
> members, Certified Professionals, Technet members).  MS also has a
> program called the ISV program which gives hefty (as much as $2000 off
> the MSDN Universal subscription) discounts to companies with shipping
> products.
>
> By your (and Dvorak's) logic, going to a "half off" sale is the same
> as having the store pay you.

Mark,  Getting half off a purchase *is* like being paid because it comes
with the precondition for services.    A discount for joining a club is
NOT the same as a MVP discount that is merit (point) based.  It is a
discount in price (measured in cash) for support services.  That's
_arguably_ income.  The fact MS reinstated the MVP program due to customer
demand is more evidence the MVP perform a valued service that is part of
what is regularly seen as part of a regular software business - customer
support.  Services and support are areas where MS says they want business
growth.  IMHO the MVP program probably is in a gray area and MS probably
recognized that possibility which is why they tried to end the program.

The logic is sound.  FYI it would be illegal for any Gov't employee doing
official business to receive MSDN if the value of MSDN were over $25.  It
is a gift - something of value.  If it is based on participation, it is at
least a gift or possibly income.  That is how the Feds. think.

> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/opinions/0,7802,2380951,00.html
> >
> > So...who were the Microsoft MVPs who hung out at COOA?????

Mr. Dale Ross, may years ago.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     26-Oct-99 21:42:19
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:14
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Mike Timbol wrote:

> In article <7v43jv$56f$[e-mail]>,
> Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>

>
> >Let's get right to the evidence, avoiding all of Timbol's diversionary
> >tactics:
>
> The post of Joseph's I'm referring to was <[e-mail]>
>
> My response included this paragraph:
>
>   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.

This characterization is blatantly incorrect.  What ever argument you now have
is
based on a inaccurate and diversionary summary of what I wrote.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  26-Oct-99 17:04:19
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:14
Subj: OS/2 Around the World!!! - New Page

From: CII <[e-mail]>

OS/2 Around the World is a page listing Links of sites
we did not know existed, and a few that we knew existed
but probably forgot about.

At least that is the focus.

You can see the site:
http://trss.webjump.com/os2atw.htm


--
http://trss.webjump.com


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]                                   27-Oct-99 01:51:25
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:14
Subj: Re: MS is still afraid of OS/2

From: [e-mail] (Eric Bennett)

In article <[e-mail]>, Bennie Nelson
<[e-mail]> wrote:


> After all this time, MS is still afraid of OS/2.


MS's site is just flaky in general in my experience.  Apparently its
official behavior is supposed to tailor to the OS you are running.  I have
heard people using a Mac to access the site complain that they had trouble
finding the Windows-specific data they were looking for.  If you access it
from a Mac it tries to stuff you data about Microsoft's Mac products.  So
I guess if you access it from OS/2 it's probably *supposed* to feed you
nothing. ;-)

I've not observed this behavior myself, but what I do observe is that
about a third to a half of the time I try to connect (usually to see their
latest laughable propaganda about the DOJ trial) I either have my
connection refused, get a page that only loads part way, or get a server
too busy error.

--
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]                                 27-Oct-99 07:41:22
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:15
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7v5phk$gl0$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
>>>> that you were referencing.
>
>>> You're a proven liar, Mike.  I want you to address the evidence before
>>> we go any further.  Your diversionary tactic isn't going to help you.
>
>> I addressed the "evidence" in the other post, Dave.

>> Obviously, you've abandoned all of the weak arguments you were trying
>> to make in this subthread, and choose to concentrate on what you feel
>> is your strongest argument.
>
>> Fine with me.
>
>Do note that I intend to persist until you admit that you've lied, Mike.

You'll be "persisting" for a long time, then.

     - Mike

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             27-Oct-99 07:49:00
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:15
Subj: 1999 Warp OS/2 vs Windows 2000

From: [e-mail]

In the 25 August 1997 Infoworld, Ed Scannell, on page one,
stated that the WorkSpace on Demand implementation of OS/2
 "could give IBM significant technical advantages over rival
Windows NT and Unix server architectures, which will not
deliver this capability until the later half of 1998 at the earliest."

The capability has yet to be delivered. But will Windows 2000
have them? We know that the 1999 Warp OS/2 is priced similarly
to Windows 2000 and is targeted for the same group of business
users. I would like to compile a list of deficiencies in the Windows 2000
offering, using 1999 Warp as the standard for comparison. Perhaps
others can expand the list. I do not have enough information on
Windows 2000 yet to know if more that the following are missing.

load balancing/ SMP support
compatibility with Novell 5.1's webshere/visual age
100% Pure Java
need for new versions of office software
security
Sun approved JVM

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm



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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 27-Oct-99 07:56:13
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:15
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7v5pao$gl0$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>> Well, I had two hits.  Not only did Mike delete the evidence, which is
>>> one of the possibilities I suggested, he also continued to lie, which
>>> is another one of the possibilities I suggested.
>>>
>>> Let's get right to the evidence, avoiding all of Timbol's diversionary
>>> tactics:
>
>> Cute trick, Dave.  Delete everything I wrote that explained why you
>> are wrong, then restate your claim that I am wrong.
>
>On the contrary, I proved that you are wrong, Mike, using actual
>quotations of entire articles.

Except that you've quoted *THE WRONG ARTICLES*.

>> Then claim that all of the other parts where I prove that even *more*
>> of your claims are wrong represent "diversionary tactics", and refuse
>> to address them.
>
>How ironic, coming from the person refusing to address the fact that
>he lied.

On the contrary, I explained exactly why you are mistaken.  You've deleted
my explanation without comment.

>>> MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
>>> MT] you deleted it,
>>>
>>> DT] I never deleted that section, Mike
>>>
>>> MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
>>> MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.
>>>
>>> Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
>>> its entirety:
>
>> Note that I did not refer to your "original response", I referred to
>> your response to my post to Joseph.
>
>That happens to be my "original response" in this thread, Mike.

Not so.  I demonstrated exactly which post I was referring to, which
certainly qualifies as "your response to my post to Joseph", exactly
as I said.  Yet you deleted that evidence, and reinserted your
misinterpretation of what I wrote.

>>>> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above
>
>>> Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
>>> appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
>>> another one of your lies.
>
>> On the contrary, in article <7uqpvs$2ns$[e-mail]>,
>
>How incredibly ironic.  So soon after you complained about not being
>able to search on a message ID, all you choose to provide is a
>message ID.  Hypocrite.

How is that hypocritical?  I never claimed you could search on the
message ID I provided.

>I'll do one better, Mike.  Here's a URL
>that was derived by asking deja.com to list every posting made by
>me in the Navigator 4.7 thread, sorted by date:
>
>http://x25.deja.com/qs.xp?ST=PS&svcclass=dnyr&QRY=Mike+Timbol+writes&defaultOp
=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&subjects=Navigator+4.7+is+available&groups=com
p.os.os2.advocacy&authors=tholen*&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=date&maxhits=100
>
>Take a look at the earliest posting, Mike, and note how it coincides
>with what I've reproduced below.

The "earliest posting" is irrelevent.  What *is* relevent is the posting
that I was referring to, which is "your response to my post to Joseph".
There are multiple posts which fit that description, and I was obviously
referring to your more recent one -- the first post listed for 10-22-99
in your list.

>> you began with "Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:"
>
>Not according to deja.com, Mike.

On the contrary, take a look at the first post listed for 10-22-99 in
your list.  It begins with this attribution line:

   Mike Timbol writes [to Joseph Coughlan]:

What does this mean?  This means that that post is "your response to
my post to Joseph".  Exactly as I said.

>>>>> You claimed that your information came from looking at the contents of
>>>>> the JDK, which didn't require running anything, Mike.
>
>>>> I did not claim that all my information came from there, Dave.
>
>>> I never said that you did say all of it came from there, Mike.  But
>>> you did claim that some of it came from there.  I'm still waiting for
>>> the name of the file that contains the alleged information.
>
>> Which alleged information are you referring to?
>
>The contents you claimed to have looked at, Mike.  Don't you remember
>claiming what was not in the JDK on the basis of looking at the contents?

I looked at several files, including classes.zip.  Are you suddenly going
to find Swing in there?

>Now, to reinser the evidence that you chose to delete:

You're referring to the wrong post, Dave.  Go look up the post I'm
talking about.  Or just delete it again and demonstrate, once again,
what a pathetic loser you are.

     - Mike

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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            27-Oct-99 08:50:27
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: MS is still afraid of OS/2

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 05:51:50, [e-mail] (Eric Bennett) wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>, Bennie Nelson
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> > After all this time, MS is still afraid of OS/2.
>
>
> MS's site is just flaky in general in my experience.  Apparently its
> official behavior is supposed to tailor to the OS you are running.  I have
> heard people using a Mac to access the site complain that they had trouble
> finding the Windows-specific data they were looking for.  If you access it
> from a Mac it tries to stuff you data about Microsoft's Mac products.  So
> I guess if you access it from OS/2 it's probably *supposed* to feed you
> nothing. ;-)
>
> I've not observed this behavior myself, but what I do observe is that
> about a third to a half of the time I try to connect (usually to see their
> latest laughable propaganda about the DOJ trial) I either have my
> connection refused, get a page that only loads part way, or get a server
> too busy error.
>
Use Windows.
The bugs in the site remain the same, but they will become less
obvious.


Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 09:12:17
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>>> Why do you say that?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> Can you elaborate on that?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

What makes you believe that?

>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>> Are you positive that is the real reason?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

Are you sure that those are mine?

>>> Are you certain that this is the real reason?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>> What makes you believe what makes I believe this?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>> Maybe my life that I am going through all this have something to do
>>> with this.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> Go on, don't be afraid.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

What makes you believe that?

>>> Are you absolutely sure that is the real reason?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>> I need a little more detail please.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

Are you sure that those are mine?

>>> You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> right back at you?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> Is it because of my sex life that I am going through all this that you say
>>> I do not approve phrases either?

>> Don't ask me.

> Don't tell me what to do.  I am the psychiatrist here!  Maybe your plans
> have something to do with this.

What makes you believe that?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 09:34:03
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
>>>>> that you were referencing.

>>>> You're a proven liar, Mike.  I want you to address the evidence before
>>>> we go any further.  Your diversionary tactic isn't going to help you.

>>> I addressed the "evidence" in the other post, Dave.

>>> Obviously, you've abandoned all of the weak arguments you were trying
>>> to make in this subthread, and choose to concentrate on what you feel
>>> is your strongest argument.

>>> Fine with me.

>> Do note that I intend to persist until you admit that you've lied, Mike.

> You'll be "persisting" for a long time, then.

Careful, Mike.  Some people around here like to use such things in
nominations for certain awards.

I see you deleted the evidence without comment again.  Looks like I'll
need to restore it again:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: [e-mail]
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$[e-mail]>
]
] 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.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$[e-mail]>
]
] In article <[e-mail]>, Joseph  <[e-mail]> 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.
]
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
]
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <[e-mail]>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
]
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
]
] > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
]
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on.
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
]
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
]
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
]
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 09:32:00
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>> Well, I had two hits.  Not only did Mike delete the evidence, which is
>>>> one of the possibilities I suggested, he also continued to lie, which
>>>> is another one of the possibilities I suggested.
>>>>
>>>> Let's get right to the evidence, avoiding all of Timbol's diversionary
>>>> tactics:

>>> Cute trick, Dave.  Delete everything I wrote that explained why you
>>> are wrong, then restate your claim that I am wrong.

>> On the contrary, I proved that you are wrong, Mike, using actual
>> quotations of entire articles.

> Except that you've quoted *THE WRONG ARTICLES*.

Balderdash, Mike.  I've quoted the right articles.  The URL I provided
proves they are the right articles.

>>> Then claim that all of the other parts where I prove that even *more*
>>> of your claims are wrong represent "diversionary tactics", and refuse
>>> to address them.

>> How ironic, coming from the person refusing to address the fact that
>> he lied.

> On the contrary, I explained exactly why you are mistaken.

I'm not mistaken, Mike, therefore your so-called explanation is another
lie.

> You've deleted my explanation without comment.

How ironic, coming from the person who deleted my evidence without
comment.  But I've restored it once again.  See below.

>>>>>> You claimed that your information came from looking at the contents of
>>>>>> the JDK, which didn't require running anything, Mike.

>>>>> I did not claim that all my information came from there, Dave.

>>>> I never said that you did say all of it came from there, Mike.  But
>>>> you did claim that some of it came from there.  I'm still waiting for
>>>> the name of the file that contains the alleged information.

>>> Which alleged information are you referring to?

>> The contents you claimed to have looked at, Mike.  Don't you remember
>> claiming what was not in the JDK on the basis of looking at the contents?

> I looked at several files, including classes.zip.

Where did you find this file, Mike?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: [e-mail]
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$[e-mail]>
]
] 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.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$[e-mail]>
]
] In article <[e-mail]>, Joseph  <[e-mail]> 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.
]
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
]
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <[e-mail]>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
]
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
]
] > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
]
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on.
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
]
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
]
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
]
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         27-Oct-99 09:41:02
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Joseph Coughlan writes:

> Mike Timbol wrote:

>> I wrote:

>>> Let's get right to the evidence, avoiding all of Timbol's diversionary
>>> tactics:

>> The post of Joseph's I'm referring to was <[e-mail]>
>>
>> My response included this paragraph:
>>
>>   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.

> This characterization is blatantly incorrect.

Par for Timbol's course.

> What ever argument you now have is based on a inaccurate and
> diversionary summary of what I wrote.

He's trying the same strategy on me.  I listed twelve facts that
represent the logical sequence used to prove that he is wrong.
He tried to claim that it's not illogical to call a product that
has a complete implementation of Java 1.2 "Java 1.1.8", using
his "blatantly incorrect" characterization of what you wrote as
his alleged proof.  He then insisted that the rest of my argument
crumbles.  The problem is that his argument is founded on his own
misinterpretation of what you wrote, thus it's really his argument
that crumbles.

I stand by what I originally wrote.  It is not wrong to claim that
OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               27-Oct-99 10:45:27
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: ISP's and OS/2 Warp

From: [e-mail] (Jim Larson)

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 02:48:54, "Craig Miller" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Just for you knowledge there are some ISP's still working with OS/2 Warp and
> helping customers with it.

My ISP is open-minded enough to even supply on-line instructions for
setting up DOIP for OS/2. http://www.jvlnet.com/support/dialing.htm

Jim Larson

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               26-Oct-99 18:14:18
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Brad BARCLAY <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson wrote:
> Oh, I went to windows because I was royally pissed at IBM (I was an OS/2
> user for over 4 years.  Fortunately, IBM showed me how stupid I was) and the
> fact Windows has the APPLICATIONS I need and contrary to dissentary belief,
> NT is quite stable and considerably faster than the 16/32-bit OS I used
> previous to it.  (Applications, by the way, are the point of using a
> computer.

[...snip...]

    This is the biggest fallicy in the Windows advocates repitoire.  The
purpose for computers is NOT to run applications.  Computers were not
invented because we had alot of software applications that we couldn't
run just laying around, you know :).

    The purpose of a computer is to *manipulate data*.  You don't need the
traditional concept of an "application" to manipulate data (a WPS object
is a good example - they manipulate data, but aren't what we often
consider to be "applications").

    The refrain "it's the APPLICATIONS stupid" is pedestrian.  It's also
wrong.  Data is what is important - everything else is just an interface
to manipulate that data.

    If your OS of choice didn't have the tools you desired to do such data
manipulations, fine.  I have no desire to comment on your choice of
platforms.  But there is nothing inherent in one OS over another which
prevents the manipulation of data, and for many, many, many people, OS/2
provides them with all of the important data manipulation they require
and desire.

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]                             27-Oct-99 10:58:28
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7v5kr1$dkt$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:

> Amazing how you can put brackets around it and still not comprehend
> it, Lucien.  There is no absence of other information in the present
> situation.

Irrelevant. The issue is the underlying ambiguity, which you've finally
correctly identified.

> Why do you think I qualified the statement with "in the
> absence of other information"?

Because your statement, while not very erudite, is essentially true
(and quite a critical mistake on your part, since it puts you in
agreement with me).

Here it is again:
"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Note that your statement is congruent with my thesis in the "costly
mistakes" thread (and a correct description of the data in the JDK
sentence).

> >> [dt] >>> No, I do not.  "Implements" by itself does not eliminate
any
> >> [dt] >>> ambiguity.  In the present case, [[[[the ambiguity]]]] is
>
> I see how you chose to delete the rest of the sentence, which notes
> that the ambiguity IS RESOLVED.

But the clencher is your unwitting affirmation that there IS AN
AMBIGUITY (resolved or not). Your statement is true and supports MY
argument, not yours.

Here is the second statement of yours correctly suggesting the presence
of an ambiguity.

[dt] > Still having reading comprehension problems, Lucien.  I just
[dt] > finished saying that [[[[the ambiguity]]]] is resolved.

If you'll consult the "costly mistakes" thread, you'll note that your
remarks here are in concert with my thesis there (and not yours).

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]                         27-Oct-99 11:31:05
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>> Amazing how you can put brackets around it and still not comprehend
>> it, Lucien.  There is no absence of other information in the present
>> situation.

> Irrelevant. The issue is the underlying ambiguity,

There is no underlying ambiguity in either case, Lucien.

> which you've finally correctly identified.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Lucien?  Exactly what do
you think it means when I say that the ambiguity is resolved by the
additional information?

>> Why do you think I qualified the statement with "in the
>> absence of other information"?

> Because your statement, while not very erudite,

On what basis do you make that insulting claim, Lucien?

> is essentially true (and quite a critical mistake on your part,

How can it be both true and a critical mistake, Lucien?  You're
contradicting yourself in the span of one sentence.

> since it puts you in agreement with me).

It does no such thing, Lucien, given that I never agreed with you
about either statement being ambiguous.

> Here it is again:
> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

I'm well aware of what I wrote, Lucien.

> Note that your statement is congruent with my thesis in the "costly
> mistakes" thread

Incorrect, Lucien.  Your thesis ignored the definition of the word
"prevent", which does not allow for any costly mistakes.

> (and a correct description of the data in the JDK sentence).

Incorrect, Lucien, given that there is no absence of other information.

>>>> [dt] >>> No, I do not.  "Implements" by itself does not eliminate
>>>> [dt] >>> any ambiguity.  In the present case, [[[[the ambiguity]]]] is

>> I see how you chose to delete the rest of the sentence, which notes
>> that the ambiguity IS RESOLVED.

> But the clencher is your unwitting affirmation that there IS AN
> AMBIGUITY (resolved or not).

IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER INFORMATION, Lucien.  There is no absence of
other information in the present case, therefore the ambiguity does
not apply to the present case.  Amazing the reading comprehension
problems you're continuing to have.

> Your statement is true

Glad you agree, Lucien.

> and supports MY argument, not yours.

Incorrect, Lucien, given that there is no absence of other information.

> Here is the second statement of yours correctly suggesting the presence
> of an ambiguity.

Still having reading comprehension problems, Lucien?  I never suggested
the presence of an ambiguity in either case.

> [dt] > Still having reading comprehension problems, Lucien.  I just
> [dt] > finished saying that [[[[the ambiguity]]]] is resolved.
>
> If you'll consult the "costly mistakes" thread, you'll note that your
> remarks here are in concert with my thesis there (and not yours).

Not at all, Lucien.  There are no remarks in concert with yours.  That
you think there are represents more evidence for your reading
comprehension problem.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          27-Oct-99 08:09:17
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: More Blatent Tholen Lies

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Jeff,
There you go, again.  Thanks for making my point by being such
an excellent example of one of those who is unskilled at logic.
You have repeatedly and consistently invented the kind of vapid
blather such as your latest post contains without the slightest
attempt on your part to defend or to substantiate any of it.
Supply just one URL that proves anything you've written concerning
me.  You cannot do it, because there is no supporting evidence.
But lack of proof is of no concern to one who is unskilled at
logic.  Again, thanks for providing abundant support for my
position.

Isn't he great, folks?  Let's give him a hand.

Bennie Nelson



Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >Marty <[e-mail]>
>
> >Jeff Glatt wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>
> >> >The operative words being "did not."  Tholen's statement is accurate.
IF he
> >> >had said, "I DO not respond to you in this thread," then your point
would
> >> >be well taken.  However, since he said "did not" in his current reply,
then
> >> >the past tense includes only prior posts in the thread, and not the
reply
> >> >you lifted the quote from.  You are trying to take Tholen's phrase,
which
> >> >clearly referred in the past tense to articles he'd written, and apply
his
> >> >words to the post that included the phrase.  For Tholen, that article
would
> >> >have to have been referred to in the present tense while he was
constructing
> >> >it.
> >>
> >> You know, it may not be a coincidence that "Bobo" disappeared almost
> >> precisely when "Bennie Nelson" showed up. They have the exact same
> >> vaudeville routine.
> >
> >Sorry, but I can't quite see that. BobO was an obnoxious, hateful,
> >bigotted prick.
>
> Sure he was... *after* people stopped buying his implausible claims
> that he was some sort of level-headed, impartial, "jolly" observer who
> just "happened" to think that Tholen made sense, just like Karel
> happens to think that Tholen is "a nice guy" who is unfairly maligned,
> and Bennie thinks that "Tholen always uses logic" whereas "his
> detractors are emotionally blocked" and "are unskilled at logic".
>
> As soon as Bobo revealed his true colors by running enough
> interference for Tholen (and he did it in *exactly* the same inept way
> that "Bennie" is doing it) and he realized that no one was buying his
> pretense of "logical objectivity" any more, that's when he let out his
> true, ugly, fanatical self. Believe me, some of these people actually
> *do* think that Bill Gates is satan, and they can be demurely sipping
> tea with their pinky extended one second -- insisting that they're
> sane, rational, pragmatic people -- and then the next second they're
> frothing at the mouth about some conspiracy theory that would even
> make David Koresh look at them strangely, and defending obviously
> mentally ill people based purely upon such bizarre holy crusades.
>
> I've seen it happen.
>
> Check out Bobo's initial posts here. They read *exactly* like
> "Bennie's". We'll see how this develops. I'm not sure where it will
> go, but I'm just saying that I *wouldn't* be totally surprised to see
> another Bobo emerge here. The future has a way of mirroring the past
> when the exact same actions/words are repeated, just like OS/2
> Advocacy yielded the same results for OS/2 as the similiar tactics of
> Amiga True Believers yielded for the Amiga.
>
> History is a powerful force. When it starts repeating, you better
> believe that it has a way of shaping what will come

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          27-Oct-99 07:49:08
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: More Blatent Tholen Lies

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>
> >The operative words being "did not."  Tholen's statement is accurate.  IF
he
> >had said, "I DO not respond to you in this thread," then your point would
> >be well taken.  However, since he said "did not" in his current reply, then
> >the past tense includes only prior posts in the thread, and not the reply
> >you lifted the quote from.  You are trying to take Tholen's phrase, which
> >clearly referred in the past tense to articles he'd written, and apply his
> >words to the post that included the phrase.  For Tholen, that article would
> >have to have been referred to in the present tense while he was
constructing
> >it.
>
> You know, it may not be a coincidence that "Bobo" disappeared almost
> precisely when "Bennie Nelson" showed up. They have the exact same
> vaudeville routine.
>
> And both are equally foolish.
>
> Of course, Bobo ran away after he dropped his guard and revealed
> himself to be a bigot. But otherwise, the above paragraph is *exactly*
> the same thing that he used to post, in all ways, from content (ie,
> the "Tholen apologist" circus performance) to grammatical form and
> "style" (ie, plodding and somewhat pretentious, without really having
> the literary talent to pull off pretention well).
>
> I have a feeling that we're in for yet more surprises here in COOA.
> Check it out. It wouldn't be the first time that someone has pulled
> such a stunt

Wrong, again, Jeff.  You really look silly making such unsubstantiated
claims.  If you had the slightest inclination to validate any of your
ridiculous positions, you could avoid much embarrassment.  All you had
to do was search Deja News for posts from my accounts that predate
Bobo.  I believe I've been posting in these groups much longer than
he has.

Deja News shows that I've been posting to comp.os.os2 newsgroups since
early 1995 with the same user IDs and name.  Note that I was an OS/2 user
then, as I am now.  Here are the URLs:

This one is actually a reply to a post (my original post did not show up
in Deja News, but my post is included in the reply):

http://x24.deja.com/[S0=905d6f0c18a7f3c]/getdoc.xp?AN=100641801&CONTEXT=9410241
57.1522008128&hitnum=2

This one is from my home ID:
http://x34.deja.com/[S0=902fb20018a7e9f]/getdoc.xp?AN=122204611&CONTEXT=9410240
00.540016778&hitnum=1

This one is from my work ID:
http://x25.deja.com/[S0=905ab70018a7d36]/getdoc.xp?AN=142089079&CONTEXT=9410236
39.1306656852&hitnum=78


Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          27-Oct-99 08:19:03
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: MS is still afraid of OS/2

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>


Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Bennie Nelson
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > After all this time, MS is still afraid of OS/2.
>
> MS's site is just flaky in general in my experience.  Apparently its
> official behavior is supposed to tailor to the OS you are running.  I have
> heard people using a Mac to access the site complain that they had trouble
> finding the Windows-specific data they were looking for.  If you access it
> from a Mac it tries to stuff you data about Microsoft's Mac products.  So
> I guess if you access it from OS/2 it's probably *supposed* to feed you
> nothing. ;-)

That makes sense: OS/2 is dead, right? <g>

>
> I've not observed this behavior myself, but what I do observe is that
> about a third to a half of the time I try to connect (usually to see their
> latest laughable propaganda about the DOJ trial) I either have my
> connection refused, get a page that only loads part way, or get a server
> too busy error.

Ah, but have you ever been fed a line that the page is not found.  I
get the same results every time.  Access using a browser that reports
OS/2 and I get 404 on the KnowledgeBase link every time.  Go to the
next PC in my office running NT and get the page fine.  Switch my
browser to report Win 95 and I get the KB page every time.  Switch
it back and get the 404 every time.  I've been trying to access the
KB for several days using Comm/2 and could never access it (404 every
time).

It's the unswerving consistency that has raised my suspicions.

>
> --
> 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

English is tricky until you get the hang of it.  Then, it becomes
downright impossible.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          27-Oct-99 08:32:25
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Jeff,
You've missed the point, again.  My post was not so much a defense
of one side versus the other, but rather an attempt to help Marty, and
I told him so.  He thanked me for my effort, which I appreciate.  He
had politely stepped in to a thread between you and I to help clarify
a point I was trying to make and I thanked him for that at that time.
I note here, parenthetically, that I supplied numerous URLs supporting
my positions in that thread and you supplied none.

You are apparently the type who does not let the facts get in the way
of what you believe.  I, on the other hand, want to stick to the facts.

Sail on, sailor.

Bennie Nelson



Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>
> >I don't recall if you posted a reply to the parody lyrics derived
> >from "American Pie".  Parody, of course, can be used for comical effect
> >or ridicule.  Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and
> >you replied to that one.  Based upon what I've read in your subsequent
> >posts, it seems that you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being
> >ridicule rather than humorous.
> >
> >When I read Marty's posts originally, it seemed to me that he was
> >making an attempt at being funny, at your expense, of course, rather
> >than ridiculing you.  Given the antipathy Marty has expressed towards
> >you, I'm not surprised that you did not see it the same way I did.  My
> >post was not intended to be critical of you or Marty.  One of my
> >intentions for posting was to see if Marty would admit what his motives
> >were in posting the parodies: did he intend them to be humorous or for
> >ridicule.
>
> Uh, Bennie, a guy by the name of "Bobo" already did your vaudeville
> routine in this newsgroup, before getting laughed out of here for
> being the naive mentally-ill-hero defender whom he became by his own
> words and deeds here. After your pathetically dumb "Tholen detractors
> are unskilled at logic" and "are emotionally blocked" foolishness, I
> would think that you wouldn't be quite so stupid that you'd attempt to
> run your inept interference for Tholen-the-lunatic again.
>
> Obviously, you *are* that stupid.
>
> But if you're going to be unbearably boring and dumb, could you at
> least be original instead of serving up the same brainless tripe that
> Bobo already did?
>
> That would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                27-Oct-99 12:44:09
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: New Warp v4.5 Client...

From: [e-mail] (rj friedman)

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:15:18, "David T. Johnson"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

εDoes this mean Brad Wardell was wrong when he posted the following on
ε9/18/99:

ε"The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock and
εIBM has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of
εtheir own."


One of Wardell's biggest faults is seeing the world of OS/2
through the eyes of whether or not Stardock can make a buck
in it. Not only is it responsible for his misapprehending
IBM's intentions (as characterized by the statement, above),
it is responsible for his infamous  - Banks don't buy OS/2
software - statement that Dave Tholen roasted him over the
coals about.



________________________________________________________

[RJ]                 OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman          Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan       [e-mail]

To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                27-Oct-99 12:44:10
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: New Warp v4.5 Client...

From: [e-mail] (rj friedman)

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:16:38, "Kim Cheung"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

εThe "speicial bid" process has been in place for as long as I can remember.
εThe annoucement was a factual annoucement with no implication of oneway or
εanother.

Actually, once this is out, I can see a lot of it eventually
trickling down through the fixpack route to those of us at
the bottom of the pool.


________________________________________________________

[RJ]                 OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman          Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan       [e-mail]

To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  27-Oct-99 09:00:22
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something along the lines of a <[e-mail]> tholened:

> Actually, I wrote too soon.

That's true of your very first posting on uselessnet, Tholen, and it's never
stopped you before, so why should it now?

>Only moments after writing the above,
> two postings from Mike showed up on our server, much later in the
> day than has been his practice during the recent thread.

I see, now you'd like to dictate *when* your numerous opponents (the ATB,
the Anti-Tholen Brigade) are allowed to post.  Sheesh, what a small mind you
must have!




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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  27-Oct-99 09:05:11
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

<[e-mail]> attempted to tholen:

> Microsoft flip-flopping?  Interesting.

Just like IBM flip-flops, in case you were unaware of (or: unwilling to
acknowledge) that.  I guess you just want to show your Kook colors again.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                            27-Oct-99 13:13:12
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

> Mr. Dale Ross, may years ago.

However Mr. Dale Ross never posted here as an MVP. Anything I did then and
now outside the Microsoft "world", then Microsoft's CompuServe forums, today
microsoft.public.* is not recognized by Microsoft. That means that every
user I helped in comp.os.ms-windows.nt.*, the BBS world etc. did not count
towards the MVP program. And Microsoft has never supported/suggested posting
by an MVP in the *.advocacy hierarchy of groups.

And the names I've seen thrown out as Microsoft MVPs in this thread...
Unless they have another name, they do not show up in the Microsoft MVP
roster. I've never heard of them, I've never seen any of their posts.
Perhaps the knowledgeable folks here could tell us which products they are
an MVP for.

Dale


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               27-Oct-99 09:29:17
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: New Warp v4.5 Client...

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

rj friedman wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:15:18, "David T. Johnson"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> εDoes this mean Brad Wardell was wrong when he posted the following on
> ε9/18/99:
>
> ε"The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock and
> εIBM has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of
> εtheir own."
>
> One of Wardell's biggest faults is seeing the world of OS/2
> through the eyes of whether or not Stardock can make a buck
> in it.

???

Please reread that, realizing Wardell runs a business and not a charity.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               27-Oct-99 13:45:26
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:16
Subj: Re: IBM Licenses SciTech Graphics Technology!

From: [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

> Brad BARCLAY <[e-mail]> wrote:

>     You yourself provide ample reason to *not* provide such service:
> Usenet news servers lose messages.  It's a fact of life.  It's easy for
> a company to get a bad reputation for selectively or not responding to
> users concerns on the open internet when such replies are lost.

I was proposing to work from the DejaNews servers as an EXTRA
service. Those servers are commonly regarded as the "have-it-all"
(and <g> for all times if a dispute arises) I think. I gave an example
of the very good impression a supplier made reacting out of the blue
to a post in an OS/2 forum by sending me an email with an URL and
the proposal to contact them if that did not solve it. If the reply is on Deja
also, the company cannot be blamed for it. Because it was lost at the users
ISP or somewhere else. Dejanews would also create an instantway to search
other users-experiences and SCI responses without the need of creating
yet another system to do at their own (and perhaps less well-known) site.

But let me make one thing clear: I am promoting additional routes along which
companies can become part of our community and improve user-experiences.

> SciTech runs a closed news server, which AFAIK isn't replicated
> anywhere, so you don't have to deal with message loss.  You see
> everything that has ever been posted, period.  And because the topic is
> highly focused on the private server (SciTech message only), you won't
> miss anything important because of having to wade through dozens of
> useless posts :).

Correct, I had to "wade" through only 1350 posts at the RSJ-server
last week because they kept everything available since beginning
this year. Neat if you want to do that, but that is something else than
asking the supplier for help. Than the (immediate) answer with an URL
is by far more impressive as a customer-service than the "old" route.

Following this line of company-closed news servers we could do away
with the OS/2-newsgroups (less advocacy <g>because that would never
be introduced on IBM's server) on the open Internet. We only need to get
all vendors so far that they open up private OS/2-sections in their newsser-
vers. I fear that that would be a far more daunting proposal / task than even
trying to get an supplier who is becoming part of the OS/2 base product so far
that they add Deja searches and support based on that to their service-mix.

> For those who are stuck with a newsreader which does not support
> multiple servers, I suggest this:  continue to use your favourite reader
> for the general Usenet via your ISP's server.  Then use the newsreader
> built into your browser for acessing other newsservers (such as SciTech's).

Sensible advice. For those stuck with the single-server limitation of ProNews
in its original 1.0 GA incarnation I would like to add update to beta 1.5. But
look on <g> DejaNews for posts about those (there seem to be different ver-
sions) of Buddy Donnelly this summer first.

The date of the specific article was 28 Aug and the URL for that search is

http://www.deja.com/qs.xp?ST=PS&svcclass=dnyr&QRY=pronews&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&O
P=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&subjects=&groups=comp.os.os2.*&authors=donnelly&fromdate=j
an+1+1999&todate=oct+30+1999&showsort=date&maxhits=100

The specific article comes up just now (don't know if that will do with this
URL
tomorrow after I have "logged off" as I see no specifics in the URL I doubt
it)

http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=518059622&CONTEXT=941031001.954597443&hitnum=1
8

Regards from Leeuwarden
Peter van Dobben de Bruijn
---
usethenet.at.the-net-4u.com (.at. becomes @)
----

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             27-Oct-99 14:03:09
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:17
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7v6npv$98r$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:

> >>>> [dt] >>> No, I do not.  "Implements" by itself does not eliminate
> >>>> [dt] >>> any ambiguity.  In the present case, [[[[the
ambiguity]]]] is
>
> >> I see how you chose to delete the rest of the sentence, which notes
> >> that the ambiguity IS RESOLVED.
>
> > But the clencher is your unwitting affirmation that there IS AN
> > AMBIGUITY (resolved or not).
>
> IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER INFORMATION, Lucien.

Yes, precisely. My exact thesis in the "costly mistakes" thread - [[In
the absence of peri-verbal context, AKA "other information"]], the
sentence(s) in question are ambiguous W.R.T. quantification.

Here is your statement again as evidence of yours (and my) position:

"The word 'implements' does allow for [[[[either 'some' or
'all']]]] functionality, [[[[in the absence of any other
information.]]]]"

Here is another of your statements in which you allude to and confirm
your recognition of the ambiguity:

" No, I do not.  'Implements' by itself does not eliminate any
ambiguity.  In the present case, [[[[[[the ambiguity]]]]]] is...."

> There is no absence of
> other information in the present case, therefore the ambiguity does
> not apply to the present case.

Irrelevant. The crucial issue is the PRESENCE OF THE UNDERLYING
AMBIGUITY ITSELF (which may or may not be resolved by peri-verbal
context, AKA "other information"); your statements prove that you
recognize their presence and thus, agree with my argument (and not your
own).

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]                               27-Oct-99 14:53:22
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:17
Subj: Re: IBM Licenses SciTech Graphics Technology!

From: [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

>> You may not be aware that we here in Europe (and perhaps
>> some other places in the world) do not live under the ruling in
>> the USA forcing

> What ruling??

I wrote it from memory and have of course trouble locating the
info on this now. But as far as I know there is a ruling (it may be
a consent decree, though) of a judge with a name with Green in
it. Under this ruling/consent decree phone-companies (as far as I
understood here) have to provide access to local subscribers (i.e.
the local access point of your ISP) for a flat monthly fee only. Wrong?

>> your phone-companies to provide local access for a fixed
>> monthly fee only.

The last year we got repeteadly informed in Europe that one
of the reasons the Internet did not 'take off" as fast here as in
the USA was this difference in phone-costs for local access. In
Europe you have (generally) to pay an amount per second from
the very first sdecond a connection to some other phone-number
comes through. Regardless if it is a local or regional, or national or
international call. This hampers (and would be the difference with
the system of phone-costs for local costs in the USA) the usage of
Internet as phone-bills will become rather huge if you are online a lot.

Regards from Leeuwarden
Peter van Dobben de Bruijn
---
usethenet.at.the-net-4u.com (.at. becomes @)
----

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          27-Oct-99 11:34:20
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:17
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Marty wrote:
>
> Bennie Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Dave Tholen wrote:
> > >
> > > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and you replied
> > > > to that one.
> > >
> > > Not line by line, as Marty alleged.
> >
> > Although I have not read every post in the threads, I have not seen any
> > post that shows you answering any of the parodies line by line.  If you
> > had, it would be simple for Marty to supply a DEJA URL for the post.
>
>
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538247932&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&hitnum=7
>
>
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538459252&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=14
>
> > > > Based upon what I've read in your subsequent posts, it seems that
> > > > you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being ridicule rather
> > > > than humorous.
> > >
> > > That's the correct interpretation.
> >
> > The question I would like Marty to answer is whether he intended to
> > be offensive or merely humorous.
>
> If I had intended to be offensive, I could have done a much better job
> then what I have done.
>
> - Marty

True, but it does not necessarily follow that you would have chosen
to simply because you could have.  Your statement implies that you
intended the parody lyrics to be humorous rather than offensive.  Am
I correct in interpreting your words as you were not intending to be
offensive when you posted the parodies?

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          27-Oct-99 11:54:02
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:17
Subj: Re: MS is still afraid of OS/2

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
says...
> >As I have noted in this NG, one of my job assignments is NT Server
administrator.
> >Sometimes I have to look up information on or download patches from MS'
website.
> >Interestingly, I have been unable to get information from that site's
KnowledgeBase
> >while using Communicator for OS/2.  Whenever I try to select a page, the
following
> >is displayed:
> >
> >
> > [Beginning of quote from MS page]
> >       The page cannot be found
> >
> >  The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name
changed, or is
> >  temporarily unavailable.
> >
> >  Please try the following:
> >
> >  If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is
spelled
> >  correctly.
> >  Open the Microsoft Product Support Services home page, and then look for
links
> >  to the information you want.
> >  Click the  Back button in your browser to try another link.
> >  Click Support Home to go to Microsoft Product Support Services.
> >
> >  HTTP 404 - File not found
> >  Product Support Services
> > [End of quote]
> >
> >So, as a test, I used the "emulate windows" switch in the PREFS.JS file and
went to
> >the MS website.  For those who don't know what that means, putting the
following
> >line in the appropriate PREFS.JS file will cause Communicator for OS/2 to
report
> >itself as a Windows 95 version instead.
> >
> >user_pref("os2.emulate.windows", true);
> >
> >This is covered in the Release Notes page.  I tried this and as long as the
> >emulate.windows switch is "true", I had no trouble getting the information
from
> >MS' website.  I took the line out and the MS site displayed the text shown
above.
> >So, the MS site lies.  The page could be found, they just wouldn't send it
if
> >they could detect that the machine running is OS/2.
> >
> >After all this time, MS is still afraid of OS/2.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Bennie Nelson
> >
>
> You get problems trying to access MS' site from IE 2.0. So MS is afraid of
> Windows, also.

One more instance of FUD posted by a Windows acolyte.

You've made a tactical blunder, here.  MS is afraid of people who don't
upgrade, so they deliberately break compatibility with their own products.
They did this with Office 97: Office 95 users were unable to exchange
documents
with Office 97 users.  That was an attempt to force the Office 95 users into
upgrading to Office 97.  That plan backfired, though.

But, back to IE 2.0: that browser is ancient and has problems working at all,
much less on a specific website.  I don't have a copy of IE 2 so I can't
readily say how old it is, but IE 3.02 for NT is copyrighted 1996.  If I had
reported that the 2.02 version of Netscape for OS/2 got the error, the fact
that I'd used a much older version of the browser would have undermined the
credibility of the post.

However, for the record, NS/2 v2.02 gets the same 404 error.  Webexplorer
does not work at all.

Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                 27-Oct-99 16:55:24
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:17
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7v6gqh$483$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>> Well, I had two hits.  Not only did Mike delete the evidence, which is
>>>>> one of the possibilities I suggested, he also continued to lie, which
>>>>> is another one of the possibilities I suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's get right to the evidence, avoiding all of Timbol's diversionary
>>>>> tactics:
>
>>>> Cute trick, Dave.  Delete everything I wrote that explained why you
>>>> are wrong, then restate your claim that I am wrong.
>
>>> On the contrary, I proved that you are wrong, Mike, using actual
>>> quotations of entire articles.
>
>> Except that you've quoted *THE WRONG ARTICLES*.
>
>Balderdash, Mike.  I've quoted the right articles.  The URL I provided
>proves they are the right articles.

Dave, you cannot prove which articles I was referring to by providing a
URL.  You can only prove which articles you *think* I was referring to.

On the other hand, I can prove which articles I actually *was* referring
to, since it was I who made the reference.  Of course, you've once again
deleted my explanation, choosing, instead, to stick with your pathetic
mistake.

And, true to form, you've dropped all of your weaker arguments.

>> On the contrary, I explained exactly why you are mistaken.  You've
>> deleted my explanation without comment.
>
>How ironic, coming from the person who deleted my evidence without
>comment.

That's a lie, Dave; I explained why your explanation is wrong.  You
are referring to *THE WRONG ARTICLES*.  I pointed you to the correct
articles.  You deleted that section.  Again.

>>>>>>> You claimed that your information came from looking at the contents of
>>>>>>> the JDK, which didn't require running anything, Mike.
>
>>>>>> I did not claim that all my information came from there, Dave.
>
>>>>> I never said that you did say all of it came from there, Mike.  But
>>>>> you did claim that some of it came from there.  I'm still waiting for
>>>>> the name of the file that contains the alleged information.
>
>>>> Which alleged information are you referring to?
>
>>> The contents you claimed to have looked at, Mike.  Don't you remember
>>> claiming what was not in the JDK on the basis of looking at the contents?
>
>> I looked at several files, including classes.zip.
>
>Where did you find this file, Mike?

In the JDK, you moron.  You asked for the name of the file in the JDK that
contains the information, so I gave you the name of a file in the JDK.

     - Mike

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             27-Oct-99 10:00:14
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:17
Subj: Re: New Warp v4.5 Client...

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


rj friedman wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:15:18, "David T. Johnson"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> ÿDoes this mean Brad Wardell was wrong when he posted the following on
> ÿ9/18/99:
>
> ÿ"The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock and
> ÿIBM has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of
> ÿtheir own."
>
> One of Wardell's biggest faults is seeing the world of OS/2
> through the eyes of whether or not Stardock can make a buck
> in it. Not only is it responsible for his misapprehending
> IBM's intentions (as characterized by the statement, above),
> it is responsible for his infamous  - Banks don't buy OS/2
> software - statement that Dave Tholen roasted him over the
> coals about.
>

Yes, I know what you mean.  He would probably trumpet about how since
this was a fee-based client that you couldn't buy in stores that that
was somehow more bad news for OS/2.  From my point of view, a fee-based
client is way better than no client at all.  I thought in 1995 that I
would probably have to ditch OS/2 in about 1998 as hardware support and
software became more problematic.  But, thanks to the internet, software
distribution for small platforms like OS/2 is possible outside of the
old obsolete retail channels.  Now it looks like I can stay with OS/2
for at least 2 more years, even if IBM ends all support.  But, if IBM
makes a new updated client available and continues to support java and
browser, maybe 5+ more years are possible.

As for the Microsoft alternative, the Windows 3.1 and Windows 95
platforms are no longer supported and the Windows 98 platform is a
complete mess.  Windows NT4 is nearing the end of its support life and
the replacement Windows 2000 is seriously bogged down in featuritis.  I
pity the hardware and software vendors who have to decide what to
support and what to write drivers for.  No wonder Linux is making
inroads!  But the biggest problem with Windows is that Microsoft is
actually making it more, rather than less expensive to use.  For
example, there are rumours that Microsoft intends to implement BIOS
locks for software installs that would marry the Windows license to the
system motherboard.  Since the functional life of motherboards is 2
years or less, this would mean that you would have to purchase a new
Windows license with every CPU upgrade.  Gee, do you think the license
fee will increase?  And each new version of Windows is becoming much
more extravagant in its hardware requirements.  Since Microsoft ends
support for old versions of Windows when they release a new version,
this means a forced upgrade of both hardware and software.  Very
expensive.  And then there are very large installation, training and
support costs.  From my chair, fat Windows clients look ridiculous.  No
wonder enterprise sites are embracing thin clients like
Workspace-on-Demand.  And no wonder SOHO users like us hang on to OS/2
as long as we possibly can.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          27-Oct-99 12:20:14
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:17
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Bennie Nelson writes:
>
> >>>>> Marty wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> I wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the rest of the article, Mike.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I did, Dave.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You said you couldn't find it, Mike.  Do make up your mind.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dave, try and understand the concept that things change with
time.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> What took so long, Mike?
>
> >>>>>>>>> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
> >>>>>>>>> that you were referencing.  Since that was the first time you
provided
> >>>>>>>>> anything that could be searched on, that was the first time I was
able
> >>>>>>>>> to find the article you were referring to.
>
> >>>>>>>> Hm... sounds to me like Dave is playing another infantile game with
you
> >>>>>>>> Mike.
>
> >>>>>>> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.
>
> >>>>>> How predictable.
>
> >>>>>>> In reality, it's Mike Timbol who is playing the game.
>
> >>>>>> Evidence, please.
>
> >>>>>>> Notice his latest lie.  Interesting that you didn't bother to
comment on it.
>
> >>>>>> Perhaps because said "lie" is non-existent.
>
> >>>>>>>> But how it sounds to me is irrelevant.
>
> >>>>>>> Indeed.  So why did you bother to comment, Marty?
>
> >>>>>> Sarcasm shooting right over your head as usual.  I'm not surprised.
>
> >>>>> Marty,
> >>>>> A number of posts you've made have contained humorous moments.
>
> >>>> What may seem humorous to a bystander won't necessarily be humorous to
> >>>> the person who is the target of abuse.
>
> >>>>> Dave did not seem to recognize them as such, or chose to interpret
> >>>>> some or all of them without the humorous ingredients.
>
> >>>> I've chosen to interpret the ones used to abuse me as abuse.
>
> >>>>> Your "American Pie" was especially good, I thought.
>
> >>>> Where did I indicate any interpretation of that so-called "humor"?
>
> >>> I don't recall if you posted a reply to the parody lyrics derived
> >>> from "American Pie".
>
> >> What were the lyrics?
>
> >                    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....
> >
> > It took a while, but I found them.
>
> Did you find any interpretation posted by me?  Did you find any
> line-by-line response from me?

As I indicated later in that same post, I have seen no post in which you
interpreted the lyrics line by line.

>
> > The URL is:
> >
> >
http://x38.deja.com/[S0=90688c2f1898753]/getdoc.xp?AN=538722843.2&CONTEXT=94096
0691.1591803974&hitnum=1
>
> >>> Parody, of course, can be used for comical effect or ridicule.
>
> >> Part of Marty's "infantile game".
>
> > I'd looked at his use of parody as attempts to inject some humor into the
> > discussion.  Of course, it was all at your expense.  I do not criticize
> > you for taking offense even though I would not have if I was the target.
>
> What you would not have done is irrelevant.

Au contraire, it is quite relevant.  I inserted that editorial comment to
make the point to you that I would not criticize you for what you did while
I also do not concur with you.  The remark also serves as an aside to any
others who may read the post, and there is where the relevancy of my remark
gains more significance.

>
> >>> Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and you replied
> >>> to that one.
>
> >> Not line by line, as Marty alleged.
>
> > Although I have not read every post in the threads, I have not seen any
> > post that shows you answering any of the parodies line by line.  If you
> > had, it would be simple for Marty to supply a DEJA URL for the post.
>
> He tried that already, attempting to pass off his modified writings
> as "song lyrics".

I recognized the songs he used as the basis for his parodies.  He is
correct: the words he posted could have been sung to the original
melodies.

He did all but use the customary formula of "Sung to the tune of <insert
song title here>.  With apologies to <insert name of author here>."

>
> >>> Based upon what I've read in your subsequent posts, it seems that
> >>> you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being ridicule rather
> >>> than humorous.
>
> >> That's the correct interpretation.
>
> > The question I would like Marty to answer is whether he intended to
> > be offensive or merely humorous.  Since you've taken offense at his
> > words, for you there is no humor, regardless of what he intended.
>
> Humor is subjective.

Indeed.

>
> >>> When I read Marty's posts originally, it seemed to me that he was
> >>> making an attempt at being funny, at your expense, of course, rather
> >>> than ridiculing you.
>
> >> The key words here are "at your expense".  That's abuse.
>
> > Since you have found Marty's attempts at being humorous to be
> > offensive, you view it that way.  If Marty merely meant to be
> > humorous, it would be appropriate for him to step up and
> > acknowledge that fact.
>
> But that would support the notion that he is playing an "infantile
> game", yet he's denied that.

I don't see Marty's use of humor as being infantile.  It seems to me
that he is looking for ways to communicate with you that are not so
confrontational and acrimonious.

>
> >>> Given the antipathy Marty has expressed towards you, I'm not
> >>> surprised that you did not see it the same way I did.  My
> >>> post was not intended to be critical of you or Marty.
>
> >> Too bad, as I wish some people would discourage Marty from polluting
> >> this newsgroup with his "infantile game".  He's not accomplishing
> >> anything useful.
>
> > If he meant to ridicule you, then I agree that is not accomplishing
> > anything useful.
>
> He's not accomplishing anything useful from my perspective, regardless
> of what he means.
>
> >>> One of my intentions for posting was to see if Marty would admit what
> >>> his motives were in posting the parodies: did he intend them to be
> >>> humorous or for ridicule.
>
> >> But Marty is a proven liar, thus you would have to take his written
> >> response with a grain of salt.
>
> > Marty has posted many useful articles in this and other newsgroups.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that he is a proven liar.

As a point of clarification, do you mean he has stated things that you
know are untrue, but which he believes to be true, or are you stating that
he is deliberately spreading falsehoods?

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                      27-Oct-99 12:47:06
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:17
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote:
: I do hope they print mine.  You know the name.  Kelly Robinson.  And, yes,
: it's not Microsoft friendly.  Even Tim Martin (I hope his health is
: improving) should appreciate it.

Umm, Kelly Robinson is a fictional character from a TV show, not your
real name.

-Jason

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          27-Oct-99 12:39:23
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:17
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > Bennie Nelson wrote:
>
> >> I wrote:
>
> >>> Bennie Nelson wrote:
>
> >>>> Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and you replied
> >>>> to that one.
>
> >>> Not line by line, as Marty alleged.
>
> >> Although I have not read every post in the threads, I have not seen any
> >> post that shows you answering any of the parodies line by line.  If you
> >> had, it would be simple for Marty to supply a DEJA URL for the post.
>
> >
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538247932&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&hitnum=7
>
> You tried that so-called "evidence" once before, Marty.  Those aren't
> "song lyrics".

They are parody song lyrics.  He took a 1970's pop song and altered the
lyrics.  To be more exact, he used the chorus from "You're So Vain" by
Carly Simon.  And you answered them line by line.  However, since he did
not identify them as a parody, it was left to the reader to interpret them
as such.  That's a tactical error on his part.  Any reader who did not
know the original song would not recognize them as song lyrics, and so
for that reader, they are not song lyrics.


>
> >
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538459252&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=14
>
> Here's the actual content, Marty:
>
> ] 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.
>
> No song lyrics in that one either, Marty.

He used/altered two lines from Hotel California by the Eagles.

>
> >>>> Based upon what I've read in your subsequent posts, it seems that
> >>>> you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being ridicule rather
> >>>> than humorous.
>
> >>> That's the correct interpretation.
>
> >> The question I would like Marty to answer is whether he intended to
> >> be offensive or merely humorous.
>
> > If I had intended to be offensive, I could have done a much better job
> > then what I have done.
>
> If you had intended to be truthful, you could have done a much better job
> than what you have done.

What is truth?-  Pontius Pilate

Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                      27-Oct-99 17:35:14
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:17
Subj: Re: IBM Licenses SciTech Graphics Technology!

From: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:

> I wrote it from memory and have of course trouble locating the
> info on this now. But as far as I know there is a ruling (it may be
> a consent decree, though) of a judge with a name with Green in
> it. Under this ruling/consent decree phone-companies (as far as I
> understood here) have to provide access to local subscribers (i.e.
> the local access point of your ISP) for a flat monthly fee only.
> Wrong?

Wrong. :) A common Urban Legend. See:
http://www.snopes.com/spoons/faxlore/internet.htm

For more info.

--
-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]                          27-Oct-99 13:20:15
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Mike Timbol wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>,
> Bennie Nelson  <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >Mike Timbol wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <7v1eku$ev7$[e-mail]>,
> >>  <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >Mike Timbol writes:
>
> >> >>>>> Balderdash, Mike.  How did you manage to get inside Joseph's head
to
> >> >>>>> know what he intended?
> >> >
> >> >>>> "Implied" does not mean "intended".  Go look up the word.
> >> >
> >> >>> Irrelevant, Mike.  I didn't claim that "implied" means "intended".
> >> >
> >> >> Your question above demonstrates your misunderstanding of the word.
> >> >
> >> >It does no such thing, Mike.
> >>
> >> Yes, it does.  Your paragraph below demonstrates your misunderstanding
> >> yet again.
> >>
> >> >All you have to go on is what Joseph
> >> >actually wrote.  He cannot imply something that he actually wrote,
> >> >because implication is indirect.  Thus he can imply only that which
> >> >he did not write.  Now, if he did not write it, then how can you know
> >> >what he did not write without getting inside his head?
> >>
> >> Your paragraph above is incorrect: I can also know what logically follows
> >> from what he actually wrote.  If he wrote "A Mustang is faster than a VW
> >> Beetle and a Porsche 911 is faster than a Mustang", he's implying that a
> >> Porsche 911 is faster than a VW beetle.  If he wrote "My car is the
> >> same color as a ripe strawberry", he's implying that his car is some
> >> sort of red color.
> >>
> >> Did he actually *write* "a Porsche 911 is faster than a VW beetle"?  No.
> >> Did he actually *write* "my car is the same color red as a strawberry?"
No.
> >> Do I need to get "inside his head" to know that he's implying those
> >> things? No.
> >>
> >> Again, Dave, go look up the word.
> >
> >Bad example, Mike.  This is simply applying the mathematical law: if A > B,
> >and B > C, then A > C.  There's no implication here: it's the law.
>
> If one group of statements means that another statement is true,
> then the first group implies that the latter statement, since the latter
> statement was not stated explicitly.
>
> Thus, you often have the logical notion that "A implies B".  That means
> that "B" logically follows from "A", whether by mathematical law or
> otherwise.
>
> >Bennie Nelson
>
>      - Mike

It seems we have arrived at a semantic impasse.  Perhaps it is time to
resort to definitions.

Imply , implicit, implicate all derive their meaning from the original
connotation of folding or twisting together.  Thus, to imply involves
making a connection between that which is stated and that which is not
stated.  So, you cannot imply what you state.  It is that which is is
not stated that can be implied.  In other words, to convey an idea
indirectly.

It is this notion of indirectness that I applied to your statement
concerning automobiles.  To me, stating that A > B and B > C is to
directly state that A > C.  In other words, it's redundant to say
A > B, B > C, and oh, by the way, A > C.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                           27-Oct-99 19:27:19
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: IBM Licenses SciTech Graphics Technology!

From: [e-mail] (John Varela)

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:35:29, [e-mail] wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>,
>   [e-mail] wrote:
>
> > I wrote it from memory and have of course trouble locating the
> > info on this now. But as far as I know there is a ruling (it may be
> > a consent decree, though) of a judge with a name with Green in
> > it. Under this ruling/consent decree phone-companies (as far as I
> > understood here) have to provide access to local subscribers (i.e.
> > the local access point of your ISP) for a flat monthly fee only.

That would be the AT&T divestiture ruling.

> Wrong. :) A common Urban Legend. See:
> http://www.snopes.com/spoons/faxlore/internet.htm
>
> For more info.

Did you actually read that before you posted the URL?

It's the exact opposite of what Peter was saying.  Peter says that
there is a rule in the US *requiring* phone companies to provide
flat-rate service.  I don't know if it's true that there is such a
national rule, but in fact flat-rate service is, if not universal, at
least common in the US.  In fact, your cited URL says, "However, since
most states require phone companies to charge a flat rate for
unlimited local usage...".

The URL you cite debunks the story that the opposite will be true:
that there will be a rule permitting phone companies to charge per
minute long distance rates for internet service.

--
John Varela
to e-mail, remove - between mind and spring

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 00:06:14
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Bennie Nelson writes:

>>>>>>> Marty wrote:

>>>>>>>> Dave Tholen wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:

>>>>>>>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> I wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the rest of the article, Mike.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did, Dave.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said you couldn't find it, Mike.  Do make up your mind.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave, try and understand the concept that things change with
time.

>>>>>>>>>>>> What took so long, Mike?

>>>>>>>>>>> It took you two days to actually post a quotation from the article
>>>>>>>>>>> that you were referencing.  Since that was the first time you
provided
>>>>>>>>>>> anything that could be searched on, that was the first time I was
able
>>>>>>>>>>> to find the article you were referring to.

>>>>>>>>>> Hm... sounds to me like Dave is playing another infantile game with
you
>>>>>>>>>> Mike.

>>>>>>>>> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.

>>>>>>>> How predictable.

>>>>>>>>> In reality, it's Mike Timbol who is playing the game.

>>>>>>>> Evidence, please.

>>>>>>>>> Notice his latest lie.  Interesting that you didn't bother to
comment on it.

>>>>>>>> Perhaps because said "lie" is non-existent.

>>>>>>>>>> But how it sounds to me is irrelevant.

>>>>>>>>> Indeed.  So why did you bother to comment, Marty?

>>>>>>>> Sarcasm shooting right over your head as usual.  I'm not surprised.

>>>>>>> Marty,
>>>>>>> A number of posts you've made have contained humorous moments.

>>>>>> What may seem humorous to a bystander won't necessarily be humorous to
>>>>>> the person who is the target of abuse.

>>>>>>> Dave did not seem to recognize them as such, or chose to interpret
>>>>>>> some or all of them without the humorous ingredients.

>>>>>> I've chosen to interpret the ones used to abuse me as abuse.

>>>>>>> Your "American Pie" was especially good, I thought.

>>>>>> Where did I indicate any interpretation of that so-called "humor"?

>>>>> I don't recall if you posted a reply to the parody lyrics derived
>>>>> from "American Pie".

>>>> What were the lyrics?

>>>                    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....
>>>
>>> It took a while, but I found them.

>> Did you find any interpretation posted by me?  Did you find any
>> line-by-line response from me?

> As I indicated later in that same post, I have seen no post in which you
> interpreted the lyrics line by line.

Then why do you think Marty continues to accuse me of such an action?

>>> The URL is:
>>>
>>>
http://x38.deja.com/[S0=90688c2f1898753]/getdoc.xp?AN=538722843.2&CONTEXT=94096
0691.1591803974&hitnum=1

>>>>> Parody, of course, can be used for comical effect or ridicule.

>>>> Part of Marty's "infantile game".

>>> I'd looked at his use of parody as attempts to inject some humor into the
>>> discussion.  Of course, it was all at your expense.  I do not criticize
>>> you for taking offense even though I would not have if I was the target.

>> What you would not have done is irrelevant.

> Au contraire, it is quite relevant.

The issue is what Marty has done, not what you would not have done,
thus it is not relevant.

> I inserted that editorial comment to make the point to you that I would
> not criticize you for what you did while I also do not concur with you.

You do not concur about what?  That Marty is playing an "infantile game"?

> The remark also serves as an aside to any others who may read the post,
> and there is where the relevancy of my remark gains more significance.

The fact that you called it an "aside" sure looks to me like a statement
that it's not relevant to what was being discussed, namely Marty's
"infantile game".

>>>>> Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and you replied
>>>>> to that one.

>>>> Not line by line, as Marty alleged.

>>> Although I have not read every post in the threads, I have not seen any
>>> post that shows you answering any of the parodies line by line.  If you
>>> had, it would be simple for Marty to supply a DEJA URL for the post.

>> He tried that already, attempting to pass off his modified writings
>> as "song lyrics".

> I recognized the songs he used as the basis for his parodies.  He is
> correct: the words he posted could have been sung to the original
> melodies.

Lots of words can be sung to original melodies.  That does not
necessarily make them "song lyrics".

> He did all but use the customary formula of "Sung to the tune of <insert
> song title here>.  With apologies to <insert name of author here>."

One could just as easily claim that anything written here are "song
lyrics", because they can be sung to music.

>>>>> Based upon what I've read in your subsequent posts, it seems that
>>>>> you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being ridicule rather
>>>>> than humorous.

>>>> That's the correct interpretation.

>>> The question I would like Marty to answer is whether he intended to
>>> be offensive or merely humorous.  Since you've taken offense at his
>>> words, for you there is no humor, regardless of what he intended.

>> Humor is subjective.

> Indeed.

Thus one should not insist that something is humorous.

>>>>> When I read Marty's posts originally, it seemed to me that he was
>>>>> making an attempt at being funny, at your expense, of course, rather
>>>>> than ridiculing you.

>>>> The key words here are "at your expense".  That's abuse.

>>> Since you have found Marty's attempts at being humorous to be
>>> offensive, you view it that way.  If Marty merely meant to be
>>> humorous, it would be appropriate for him to step up and
>>> acknowledge that fact.

>> But that would support the notion that he is playing an "infantile
>> game", yet he's denied that.

> I don't see Marty's use of humor as being infantile.

He's done far more than simply use what you consider to be "humor".
Sounds like he was stuck at home with some illness and chose to spend
his time in front of a computer responding to people on USENET to
pass the time.  That is, he was entertaining himself at the expense
of others.

> It seems to me that he is looking for ways to communicate with you
> that are not so confrontational and acrimonious.

?????  Then why was he being so confrontational?

>>>>> Given the antipathy Marty has expressed towards you, I'm not
>>>>> surprised that you did not see it the same way I did.  My
>>>>> post was not intended to be critical of you or Marty.

>>>> Too bad, as I wish some people would discourage Marty from polluting
>>>> this newsgroup with his "infantile game".  He's not accomplishing
>>>> anything useful.

>>> If he meant to ridicule you, then I agree that is not accomplishing
>>> anything useful.

>> He's not accomplishing anything useful from my perspective, regardless
>> of what he means.

>>>>> One of my intentions for posting was to see if Marty would admit what
>>>>> his motives were in posting the parodies: did he intend them to be
>>>>> humorous or for ridicule.

>>>> But Marty is a proven liar, thus you would have to take his written
>>>> response with a grain of salt.

>>> Marty has posted many useful articles in this and other newsgroups.

>> That doesn't change the fact that he is a proven liar.

> As a point of clarification, do you mean he has stated things that you
> know are untrue,

Yes.

> but which he believes to be true,

Which he hasn't taken the time to determine if they are true.

> or are you stating that he is deliberately spreading falsehoods?

It's been quite deliberate on his part.  I presented him with evidence
that proved him wrong.  He deleted the evidence and persisted with his
lie.  He later claimed that he must have missed that, yet he responded
to the article with the evidence.  Go figure.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 00:11:08
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Bennie Nelson writes:

>> Marty writes:

>>> Bennie Nelson wrote:

>>>> I wrote:

>>>>> Bennie Nelson wrote:

>>>>>> Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and you replied
>>>>>> to that one.

>>>>> Not line by line, as Marty alleged.

>>>> Although I have not read every post in the threads, I have not seen any
>>>> post that shows you answering any of the parodies line by line.  If you
>>>> had, it would be simple for Marty to supply a DEJA URL for the post.

>>>
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538247932&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&hitnum=7

>> You tried that so-called "evidence" once before, Marty.  Those aren't
>> "song lyrics".

> They are parody song lyrics.

That doesn't mean they are "song lyrics".

> He took a 1970's pop song and altered the lyrics.

Thus they are no longer "song lyrics".

> To be more exact, he used the chorus from "You're So Vain" by
> Carly Simon.

That chorus doesn't mention me.

> And you answered them line by line.

Irrelevant, given that they are not "song lyrics".

> However, since he did not identify them as a parody, it was left to
> the reader to interpret them as such.

Yet Marty insists that his interpretation is the only correct one, by
insisting that they are "song lyrics".

> That's a tactical error on his part.

It's all part of his "infantile game".

> Any reader who did not know the original song would not recognize
> them as song lyrics,

Any reader who knows the original song would realize that my name isn't
part of those lyrics.

> and so for that reader, they are not song lyrics.

For any reader, they are not "song lyrics".

>>>
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=538459252&search=thread&CONTEXT=940891608.2207
25313&HIT_CONTEXT=940891608.220725313&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=14

>> Here's the actual content, Marty:
>>
>> ] 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.
>>
>> No song lyrics in that one either, Marty.

> He used/altered two lines from Hotel California by the Eagles.

Thus they are no longer "song lyrics".

>>>>>> Based upon what I've read in your subsequent posts, it seems that
>>>>>> you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being ridicule rather
>>>>>> than humorous.

>>>>> That's the correct interpretation.

>>>> The question I would like Marty to answer is whether he intended to
>>>> be offensive or merely humorous.

>>> If I had intended to be offensive, I could have done a much better job
>>> then what I have done.

>> If you had intended to be truthful, you could have done a much better job
>> than what you have done.

> What is truth?-  Pontius Pilate

Check the dictionary.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 00:15:19
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on Dave's part.

>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.

>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
>> better than you, Marty?

> Reading comprehension problems?

Obviously not, Marty.  I see you didn't answer my question.  It figures.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             27-Oct-99 17:38:08
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
> > their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?
>
> How about IBM?  :-)

Well, yes, I see your point but they haven't dumped their OS/2
products.  I am referring to companies that do not sell anything for
OS/2 but used to.  There is certainly no question that the Windows
installed base is huge relative to the OS/2 base and I certainly would
have thought that companies that had good OS/2 products would have been
able to successfully market similarly-good products in the Windows
world, also.  But...as I say, none are coming to mind.  I thought of
Powerquest with their Partition Magic software but they have not really
dumped OS/2 since their v4 product still supports HPFS volumes and runs
as a DOS executable under OS/2.  But they might be debatable.  Any
others?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                            27-Oct-99 20:20:18
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

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

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>Can anyone think of an ISV that formerly developed and sold a
>substantial OS/2 product and then stopped selling it "cold turkey" in
>favor a Windows version?  You know the story:  OS/2 is a dying
>platform.  There are hardly any OS/2 users.  The OS/2 marketplace is
>dead.  There are hundreds of millions of Windows users who throw money
>at software like sailors do at naked women.  Etc.  Etc.  So what has
>happened to these OS/2 ISVs?
>
>Microrim used to sell a product called R:base for OS/2.  Now, Microrim
>seems to be gone.  There is a small company called Rbase Technologies
>that seems to still sell R:base but they do not appear to be very
>prosperous.
>
>SPG used to sell a program called Colorworks for OS/2.  They stopped
>with the OS/2 product and moved to Windows with a critically-acclaimed
>"Colorworks:Web3."  Now, they sell "Colorworks:Web4" and advertise their
>contract programming services on their web site.  It doesn't look like
>there will be an IPO anytime soon.
>
>Borland was a large software company that sold development tools for
>OS/2 including a C++ compiler and application builders like
>ObjectVision.  Now they are smaller-sized company called Borland/Inprise
>and their biggest product seems to be a Java enterprise development tool
>called Jbuilder.  They look to be doing OK but not exactly setting the
>world on fire.
>
>So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
>their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?
>

Now, let's here it for all the all OS/2 companies going IPO.
<quiet>
Okay, how about just the all OS/2 companies making a good living, let alone a
great one.
<real quiet>

Borland was never an OS/2 company and SPG decide to bail on OS/2 and live,
which they are doing, than stay with OS/2 and go broke.



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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 00:37:28
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>>>> [dt] >>> No, I do not.  "Implements" by itself does not eliminate
>>>>>> [dt] >>> any ambiguity.  In the present case, [[[[the
>>>>>> [dt] >>> ambiguity]]]] is

>>>> I see how you chose to delete the rest of the sentence, which notes
>>>> that the ambiguity IS RESOLVED.

>>> But the clencher is your unwitting affirmation that there IS AN
>>> AMBIGUITY (resolved or not).

>> IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER INFORMATION, Lucien.

> Yes, precisely.

Then why do you keep ignoring the fact that there is presence of other
information in the present situation, Lucien?  That makes the above
statement irrelevant to the present situation.

> My exact thesis in the "costly mistakes" thread

On the contrary, Lucien, your "exact thesis" in that thread involved
"X bar syntax", which has nothing to do with the presence or absence
of other information.

> - [[In the absence of peri-verbal context, AKA "other information"]],
> the sentence(s) in question are ambiguous W.R.T. quantification.

That statement is incorrect, because the definition of "prevent"
includes the quantification information that you claim is absent.
To prevent means to have zero occurrences, to keep from happening.

> Here is your statement again as evidence of yours (and my) position:

I already know what my statement is, Lucien.

> "The word 'implements' does allow for [[[[either 'some' or
> 'all']]]] functionality, [[[[in the absence of any other
> information.]]]]"

That is a correct statement as it stands.  I am simply referring to a
single word.  That statement does not apply to the present situation,
however, because there is presence of other information.

> Here is another of your statements in which you allude to and confirm
> your recognition of the ambiguity:

I already know what my statement is, Lucien.  You obviously don't,
given how you truncated it at an inappropriate location.

> " No, I do not.  'Implements' by itself does not eliminate any
> ambiguity.  In the present case, [[[[[[the ambiguity]]]]]] is...."

Note that I do not allude to or confirm any ambiguity in the present
situation, because the ambiguity I refer to is confined to a word "by
itself".  You do know what "by itself" means, don't you, Lucien?  You
truncated my reference to the present situation before the crucial word
"resolved", which means that there is no ambiguity in the present
situation, therefore I do not allude to or confirm any recognition of
ambiguity in the present situation.  To conclude otherwise is illogical
and evidence of reading comprehension problems.

>> There is no absence of other information in the present case,
>> therefore the ambiguity does not apply to the present case.

> Irrelevant.

On the contrary, the presence of other information is quite relevant,
because it indicates that my statement doesn't apply to the present
situation, Lucien.

> The crucial issue is the PRESENCE OF THE UNDERLYING AMBIGUITY ITSELF

There is no such presence in the present situation, Lucien.

> (which may or may not be resolved by peri-verbal context, AKA "other
> information");

Irrelevant, given that the ambiguity was resolved by other information.
Just because other information won't necessarily resolve any ambiguity
doesn't mean that the ambiguity wasn't resolved.

> your statements prove that you recognize their presence

Incorrect, Lucien.  I cannot recognize the presence of something that
is absent.

> and thus, agree with my argument

Incorrect, Lucien.  Read my lips:  I disagree with your argument.

> (and not your own).

Incorrect, Lucien.  Read my lips:  I agree with my argument.

Let's try a little test:

#1:  It rained today.

#2:  It rained today until sunset.

The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day?

The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore
one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the
absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to
the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.

Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".
Or are you really that idiotic?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 28-Oct-99 00:43:07
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <[e-mail]>, Joseph  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>Mike Timbol wrote:
>
>> The post of Joseph's I'm referring to was <[e-mail]>
>>
>> My response included this paragraph:
>>
>>   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.
>
>This characterization is blatantly incorrect.  What ever argument you now
>have is based on a inaccurate and diversionary summary of what I wrote.

Ah, I see.  So perhaps what you meant to say is:

   "IBM's JDK 1.1.8 on OS/2 includes a tiny subset of the additional
    functionality found in JDK 1.2.  I'd tell you what those features
    are, but I really don't have the faintest idea -- I just read it
    in an IBM press release.  The only reason I bring this up is
    to try and divert attention from the fact that JDK 1.2 is not
    actually available on OS/2, even though it has been released for
    Windows and Solaris for a year now."

Thanks for clearing that up. :)

     - Mike


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               27-Oct-99 20:53:02
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on Dave's
part.
>
> >>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>
> >>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>
> >> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
> >> better than you, Marty?
>
> > Reading comprehension problems?
>
> Obviously not, Marty.

You've asked me something completely unrelated to my statement, Dave.  I
say, "Gee the sky is blue," and you respond with "What makes you think
my eyes are green?"

> I see you didn't answer my question.  It figures.

Perhaps because it was completely irrelevant.  I'll spell it out for the
feeble-minded: Mike Ruskai corrected my spelling of the word "blatant".
Your question is a non sequitur.

To answer your inappropriate question so you can stop crying, nothing
has lead me to believe or disbelieve in Mike's ability to identify an
alleged "lie/game" any better than me.  Now didn't that make a lot of
sense?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 00:44:00
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>> Well, I had two hits.  Not only did Mike delete the evidence, which is
>>>>>> one of the possibilities I suggested, he also continued to lie, which
>>>>>> is another one of the possibilities I suggested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's get right to the evidence, avoiding all of Timbol's diversionary
>>>>>> tactics:

>>>>> Cute trick, Dave.  Delete everything I wrote that explained why you
>>>>> are wrong, then restate your claim that I am wrong.

>>>> On the contrary, I proved that you are wrong, Mike, using actual
>>>> quotations of entire articles.

>>> Except that you've quoted *THE WRONG ARTICLES*.

>> Balderdash, Mike.  I've quoted the right articles.  The URL I provided
>> proves they are the right articles.

> Dave, you cannot prove which articles I was referring to by providing a
> URL.

Sure I can, Mike.  The URL shows the extent of my contributions to this
thread.  Sort them chronologically and you can easily determine exactly
which issue caused me to respond.  Obviously, it's when you accused
Joseph of being wrong (by calling his statement "bullshit").  You took
issue with just a single line from Joseph's posting.  Everything else
stems from that one line, Mike.

I see you deleted the evidence again.  Easy to reinsert it below, however.

>>>>>>>> You claimed that your information came from looking at the contents
of
>>>>>>>> the JDK, which didn't require running anything, Mike.

>>>>>>> I did not claim that all my information came from there, Dave.

>>>>>> I never said that you did say all of it came from there, Mike.  But
>>>>>> you did claim that some of it came from there.  I'm still waiting for
>>>>>> the name of the file that contains the alleged information.

>>>>> Which alleged information are you referring to?

>>>> The contents you claimed to have looked at, Mike.  Don't you remember
>>>> claiming what was not in the JDK on the basis of looking at the contents?

>>> I looked at several files, including classes.zip.

>> Where did you find this file, Mike?

> In the JDK, you moron.

Typical invective.

> You asked for the name of the file in the JDK that contains the
> information, so I gave you the name of a file in the JDK.

I donwloaded the JDK months ago, Mike.  There is no file named
"classes.zip" among the files available for download.  Try again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: [e-mail]
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$[e-mail]>
]
] 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.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$[e-mail]>
]
] In article <[e-mail]>, Joseph  <[e-mail]> 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.
]
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
]
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <[e-mail]>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
]
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
]
] > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
]
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on.
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
]
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
]
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
]
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                             27-Oct-99 17:54:01
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >Can anyone think of an ISV that formerly developed and sold a
> >substantial OS/2 product and then stopped selling it "cold turkey" in
> >favor a Windows version?  You know the story:  OS/2 is a dying
> >platform.  There are hardly any OS/2 users.  The OS/2 marketplace is
> >dead.  There are hundreds of millions of Windows users who throw money
> >at software like sailors do at naked women.  Etc.  Etc.  So what has
> >happened to these OS/2 ISVs?
> >
> >Microrim used to sell a product called R:base for OS/2.  Now, Microrim
> >seems to be gone.  There is a small company called Rbase Technologies
> >that seems to still sell R:base but they do not appear to be very
> >prosperous.
> >
> >SPG used to sell a program called Colorworks for OS/2.  They stopped
> >with the OS/2 product and moved to Windows with a critically-acclaimed
> >"Colorworks:Web3."  Now, they sell "Colorworks:Web4" and advertise their
> >contract programming services on their web site.  It doesn't look like
> >there will be an IPO anytime soon.
> >
> >Borland was a large software company that sold development tools for
> >OS/2 including a C++ compiler and application builders like
> >ObjectVision.  Now they are smaller-sized company called Borland/Inprise
> >and their biggest product seems to be a Java enterprise development tool
> >called Jbuilder.  They look to be doing OK but not exactly setting the
> >world on fire.
> >
> >So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
> >their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?
> >
>
> Now, let's here it for all the all OS/2 companies going IPO.
> <quiet>
> Okay, how about just the all OS/2 companies making a good living, let alone
a
> great one.
> <real quiet>

I think you are missing my point which is that former OS/2 software
vendors apparently are not thriving after moving to Windows.  Frankly,
this is surprising to me.  I would have thought that random chance by
itself would mean that some of these companies would have made it big in
Windows.  I was wondering if I was just seeing a few isolated companies
and missing some other success stories or if this general trend is
really true.

>
> Borland was never an OS/2 company and SPG decide to bail on OS/2 and live,
> which they are doing, than stay with OS/2 and go broke.
>
Well, Borland started with a DOS TSR program called "Sidekick" written
by Phillipe Kahn.  Then they came up with a development tool called
"Turbo Pascal." which was pretty good.  No, they were not an "OS/2"
company but they did have a lot of important OS/2 products at one time,
particularly their C++ compiler for OS/2.  And yes, SPG is still
'living' but it doesn't look like they are living all that well.  Their
Colorworks:Web 3 program received very good reviews and was very
competitively priced.  I did not use it but it appeared to be first
rate.  But go to the SPG web site now and you will be struck by what it
is today versus what it was a year ago.  What is happening to these
companies?  What is happening to the software industry?  This is a
bigger issue than just boosting OS/2 or Windows, IMO.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 00:56:03
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>>>> The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on Dave's
part.

>>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

>>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.

>>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
>>>> better than you, Marty?

>>> Reading comprehension problems?

>> Obviously not, Marty.

> You've asked me something completely unrelated to my statement, Dave.

Incorrect, Marty.  You were thanking some "Mike" for the alleged example
that followed.

> I say, "Gee the sky is blue," and you respond with "What makes you think
> my eyes are green?"

Where did I allegedly do that, Marty?

>> I see you didn't answer my question.  It figures.

> Perhaps because it was completely irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty.  You were thanking some "Mike"
for the alleged example that followed.

> I'll spell it out for the feeble-minded: Mike Ruskai corrected my
> spelling of the word "blatant".

Your sentence wasn't dealing with a misspelling, Marty.  Your sentence
was dealing with an alleged example of a "lie/game" on my part.

> Your question is a non sequitur.

Your reference to a misspelling above is a non sequitur, Marty.

> To answer your inappropriate question so you can stop crying,

On what basis do you claim that I'm "crying", Marty?  I see you just
can't resist lying about me.

> nothing has lead me to believe or disbelieve in Mike's ability to
> identify an alleged "lie/game" any better than me.

So why did you refer to him in a sentence dealing with an allleged
example of a "lie/game" on my part, Marty?

> Now didn't that make a lot of sense?

Your reference to Mike did not make a lot of sense, Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               27-Oct-99 21:14:07
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > >
> > > So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
> > > their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?
> >
> > How about IBM?  :-)
>
> Well, yes, I see your point but they haven't dumped their OS/2
> products.

Not all of them, but a few for sure.

> I am referring to companies that do not sell anything for
> OS/2 but used to.

I take it Stardock is then excluded from this category.  How about
PowerQuest?

> There is certainly no question that the Windows
> installed base is huge relative to the OS/2 base and I certainly would
> have thought that companies that had good OS/2 products would have been
> able to successfully market similarly-good products in the Windows
> world, also.  But...as I say, none are coming to mind.  I thought of
> Powerquest with their Partition Magic software but they have not really
> dumped OS/2 since their v4 product still supports HPFS volumes and runs
> as a DOS executable under OS/2.  But they might be debatable.  Any
> others?

Oops.  I should read on before I write next time.  ;-)

Their product is not technically "for OS/2", but it works "with OS/2".
Technically, Win95 "works with" OS/2.  But they have given OS/2 users
some ability to use their latest products, thankfully.

I just found it amusing how their product's footprint went from about
2.5MB when they had DOS and OS/2 executables, to a whopping 100MB or so
when they went the Win9x path.  I'm sure it looks really pretty, but
that's not an extra 97.5MB of filesystem support.  ;-)

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               27-Oct-99 21:18:15
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:18
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Now Dave, the twit, is telling me the meaning of what I wrote, in
contrast to the meaning I just spelled out.

One more time for the feeble-minded (DAVE: THIS MEANS YOU)-

I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.
Perhaps after the third or forth indentation and reply, even Tholen may
catch on, but I'm not too hopeful.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 28-Oct-99 06:53:24
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7v868h$1lq$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>>> Cute trick, Dave.  Delete everything I wrote that explained why you
>>>>>> are wrong, then restate your claim that I am wrong.
>
>>>>> On the contrary, I proved that you are wrong, Mike, using actual
>>>>> quotations of entire articles.
>
>>>> Except that you've quoted *THE WRONG ARTICLES*.
>
>>> Balderdash, Mike.  I've quoted the right articles.  The URL I provided
>>> proves they are the right articles.
>
>> Dave, you cannot prove which articles I was referring to by providing a
>> URL.
>
>Sure I can, Mike.  The URL shows the extent of my contributions to this
>thread.  Sort them chronologically and you can easily determine exactly
>which issue caused me to respond.

I didn't refer to the issue that caused you to respond; I referred to
your reply to my post to Joseph.  I pointed you directly to the post
I was referring to.  You refuse to even address my point -- instead,
you simply delete it, and restate your original point.

I'll just take your tactics as an admission of failure.  Really, who
do you think you're fooling?

>>>>>>>>> You claimed that your information came from looking at the contents
of
>>>>>>>>> the JDK, which didn't require running anything, Mike.
>
>>>>>>>> I did not claim that all my information came from there, Dave.
>
>>>>>>> I never said that you did say all of it came from there, Mike.  But
>>>>>>> you did claim that some of it came from there.  I'm still waiting for
>>>>>>> the name of the file that contains the alleged information.
>
>>>>>> Which alleged information are you referring to?
>
>>>>> The contents you claimed to have looked at, Mike.  Don't you remember
>>>>> claiming what was not in the JDK on the basis of looking at the
contents?
>
>>>> I looked at several files, including classes.zip.
>
>>> Where did you find this file, Mike?
>
>> In the JDK, you moron.  You asked for the name of the file in the JDK
>> that contains the information, so I gave you the name of a file in the
>> JDK.
>
>I donwloaded the JDK months ago, Mike.  There is no file named
>"classes.zip" among the files available for download.  Try again.

Dave, I didn't say you could download classes.zip separately, I said
that the file is *IN THE JDK*.  If you really downloaded (and installed)
the JDK, then the file is already on your system.

Really, Dave, you are reaching new lows of stupidity.

     - Mike

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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            28-Oct-99 08:07:26
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 10:23:19
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:53:48, [e-mail] (Esther Schindler)
wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:59:28, "David T. Johnson"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> | So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
> | their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?
>
> * The folks who made VxREXX. (Can't think of the company name at the
> moment, but it's doing quite well.)
>
> * Computer Associates published several OS/2 apps in the 2.x days --
> and they're doing mighty fine without OS/2, too.
>
[snip]
One would be hard pressed to call CA an OS/2 ISV. I mean, the whole
PC-business is more like a hobby for those guys...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: [e-mail]                       28-Oct-99 08:04:06
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: 1999 Warp OS/2 vs Windows 2000

From: [e-mail] (Darwin Ouyang)

In article <[e-mail]>,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In the 25 August 1997 Infoworld, Ed Scannell, on page one,
>stated that the WorkSpace on Demand implementation of OS/2
> "could give IBM significant technical advantages over rival
>Windows NT and Unix server architectures, which will not
>deliver this capability until the later half of 1998 at the earliest."
>
>The capability has yet to be delivered. But will Windows 2000
>have them? We know that the 1999 Warp OS/2 is priced similarly
>to Windows 2000 and is targeted for the same group of business
>users. I would like to compile a list of deficiencies in the Windows 2000
>offering, using 1999 Warp as the standard for comparison. Perhaps
>others can expand the list. I do not have enough information on
>Windows 2000 yet to know if more that the following are missing.
>
>load balancing/

There are two forms of load balacing in Windows 2000, WLBS (which allows a
cluster of web servers to look like one machine -- www.microsoft.com runs
this), and COM+ Load Balancing.

COM+ Load Balancing has been cut.

>SMP support

Windows 2000 has always had this.

>compatibility with Novell 5.1's webshere/visual age

Dunno.

>100% Pure Java

If you really need it, go download the Sun Win32 Java SDK.

>need for new versions of office software

You don't need to run new versions of office apps. An application that ran
on NT4 should run on Windows 2000.

>security

Huh? Security infrastructure has always been part of the NT kernel. (Now,
how bug free is a different argument entirely.)

>Sun approved JVM

Go download Sun's JVM if you really want it.

Darwin Ouyang

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 11:03:06
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> Play on, Dave.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
>> the one playing the "infantile game".

> Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.

I've done more than just say so, Marty.  I've reproduced evidence that
supports the claim.

> You know better than that Dave.

Fortunately, I've done more than just say it.

> Or perhaps you don't.

Perhaps not.

> Keep on playing.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
the one playing the "infantile game".

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 11:15:21
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.

>>>> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example of
>>>> a "lie/game" on my part.

>>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.

>> Illogically,

> Are you still too blind to see it?

There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
halluncinating?

> I used the word "blatant".

You also used the word "following", Marty.  You also used the word
"another", Marty.  You also used "lie/game".

> I would have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past)
> if Mike had not corrected me.

Illogical, given that I called your attention to your misspelling
of "hypocrisy" and you still got it wrong after that.

> I thanked him after using the correct spelling.

There's no reference to any misspelling, Marty.

> Get over it, moron.

Typical invective, coming from someone without a logical argument.
No surprise there.

> A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.

A two-year-old also won't see any reference to a misspelling, Marty.

>>>> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
>>>> find embarassing:
>>>>
>>>> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
>>>> M] Dave's part.

>>> While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
>>> question?

>> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?

> The one which led me to question your reading comprehension facilities.

You're erroneously presupposing the existence of an "idiotically
inappropriate" question, Marty.  What led you to question my reading
comprehension facilities is your continuing "infantile game".

>>> Here you go:

>>>>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

>> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
>> Marty?

> Nothing,

Then why did you call it "idiotically inappropriate", Marty?

> which is why I wasn't referring to it.

Incorrect, Marty.  Here's the relevant excerpt from your posting:

M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
M] question?  Here you go:
M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

>>>>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.

>>>>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
>>>>>> better than you, Marty?

> The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.

Incorrect, given that you "Here you go" precedes a different question,
Marty.

> Hence my commentary below.

Not hence your introductory "Here you go", Marty.

> Don't bother to admit your mistake.

You're erroneously presupposing an error on my part, Marty.

> It's painfully obvious by now anyway.

You're still erroneously presupposing an error on my part, Marty.  What's
really obvious is the question that followed your "Here you go".

>>>>> Reading comprehension problems?

>>> Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.

>> What alleged embarassment, Marty?

> Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.

Note the lack of admission, Marty.

> Must have tried to change the subject to avoid some embarassment.

What alleged embarassment, Marty?

> Too bad it didn't work.

You're erroneously presupposing some embarassment on my part, Marty.

>>> The rest of us have.

>> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part for
>> anyone to realize, Marty.

> Quite possible indeed.

Incorrect, Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 11:29:21
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>> Cute trick, Dave.  Delete everything I wrote that explained why you
>>>>>>> are wrong, then restate your claim that I am wrong.

>>>>>> On the contrary, I proved that you are wrong, Mike, using actual
>>>>>> quotations of entire articles.

>>>>> Except that you've quoted *THE WRONG ARTICLES*.

>>>> Balderdash, Mike.  I've quoted the right articles.  The URL I provided
>>>> proves they are the right articles.

>>> Dave, you cannot prove which articles I was referring to by providing a
>>> URL.

>> Sure I can, Mike.  The URL shows the extent of my contributions to this
>> thread.  Sort them chronologically and you can easily determine exactly
>> which issue caused me to respond.

> I didn't refer to the issue that caused you to respond;

That's the only relevant issue, Mike.  The rest are diversions on your
part.

> I referred to your reply to my post to Joseph.

Which I've reproduced several times now, Mike.  Of course, you keep
deleting the evidence, but it's trivial for me to restore it, which
I've done again.

> I'll just take your tactics as an admission of failure.

I'll just take your deletion tactics as an admission of failure.

> Really, who do you think you're fooling?

Really, who do you think you're fooling?

>>>>>>>>>> You claimed that your information came from looking at the contents
of
>>>>>>>>>> the JDK, which didn't require running anything, Mike.

>>>>>>>>> I did not claim that all my information came from there, Dave.

>>>>>>>> I never said that you did say all of it came from there, Mike.  But
>>>>>>>> you did claim that some of it came from there.  I'm still waiting for
>>>>>>>> the name of the file that contains the alleged information.

>>>>>>> Which alleged information are you referring to?

>>>>>> The contents you claimed to have looked at, Mike.  Don't you remember
>>>>>> claiming what was not in the JDK on the basis of looking at the
contents?

>>>>> I looked at several files, including classes.zip.

>>>> Where did you find this file, Mike?

>>> In the JDK, you moron.  You asked for the name of the file in the JDK
>>> that contains the information, so I gave you the name of a file in the
>>> JDK.

>> I donwloaded the JDK months ago, Mike.  There is no file named
>> "classes.zip" among the files available for download.  Try again.

> Dave, I didn't say you could download classes.zip separately,

In which case your answer doesn't do any good, Mike.  Which file did you
download that contains classes.zip?  In other words, take the position of
the casual reader who wishes to verify your claims.  They can't find any
separate classes.zip file, so which file should they download, Mike?  Or
are you purposely not answering the question to prevent the casual reader
from verifying your claims?

> I said that the file is *IN THE JDK*.

In which file, Mike?  Which top-level file did you download that contains
classes.zip?  Why do you continue to avoid answering the question?

> If you really downloaded (and installed) the JDK, then the file is
> already on your system.

Irrelevant, Mike.  I want to know where *you* saw the contents.

> Really, Dave, you are reaching new lows of stupidity.

Typical invective, coming from someone who lacks a logical argument.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: [e-mail]
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$[e-mail]>
]
] 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.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$[e-mail]>
]
] In article <[e-mail]>, Joseph  <[e-mail]> 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.
]
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
]
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <[e-mail]>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
]
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
]
] > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
]
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on.
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
]
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
]
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
]
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                28-Oct-99 11:45:07
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: New Warp v4.5 Client...

From: [e-mail] (rj friedman)

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:00:28, "David T. Johnson"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

εYes, I know what you mean.  He would probably trumpet about how since
εthis was a fee-based client that you couldn't buy in stores that that
εwas somehow more bad news for OS/2.  From my point of view, a fee-based
εclient is way better than no client at all...

My own feeling is that once the fee based client is out,
eventually we will start to get the benefits and features of
it - more than likely through the traditional fixpack route,
but possibly on an `update' CD (but *not* touted as a new
client), that ties all the updates (java, drivers, tcpip,
etc.) together.



________________________________________________________

[RJ]                 OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman          Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan       [e-mail]

To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                28-Oct-99 06:41:07
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: 1999 Warp OS/2 vs Windows 2000

From: [e-mail] (Jerry McBride)

In article
<[e-mail]>,
"Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:36:46 -0500, Kelly Robinson wrote:
>
>>If you ask me, any IT professional worth a damn ain't gonna upgrade to
>>nuttin' until at least mid-2000 when the Y2K crisis is over with.
>>
>>Anyone changing things or upgrading right now is playing with fire.
>
>Never say never.   Just ran into a guy who said their management decided to
>do a roll out of 1000 NT stations to replace OS/2 because - get this: they
>don't want to apply fixpaks to their OS/2 stations to make them Y2K
>compliant.
>
>The roll out is scheduled in 4 weeks!!!!     (What kind of idiots runs
>companies these days?)
>
>(He was asking for help!   He said testing has shown that it will take at
>least 4 hours per machine)
>

4 Hours? That's if there are no problems to resolve...

4 hours, 1000 machines...

1  man @2  per day, that's 500   days...
2  men @4  per day, that's 250   days...
4  men @8  per day, that's 125   days...
8  men @16 per day, that's 62.5  days...
16 men @32 per day, that's 31.25 days...

And... those are works days? During non-use of the system (after hours)?...
With no install problems?... At how much manpower cost?... At how much lost
productivity?...

Wow! Somebody better get working! Now! Or wake up and spend less than eighth
of the time installing fixpaks on the current crop of WORKING OS/2 machines...

You gotta' love this stuff...

Gee... Has microsoft certified NT for Y2K preparedness?


--

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

*            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...
*
*       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.151 for your next java project at:
*
*                     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]                                28-Oct-99 12:06:10
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: New Warp v4.5 Client...

From: [e-mail] (rj friedman)

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:22:25, David H. McCoy
<[e-mail]> wrote:


εMarty, look at whom you are speaking. This guy has "OS/2 live it or live with

εit" for a tagline.
»
εYou think he sees OS/2 as anything but a religion or way of life?


You know - for a guy who dumped OS/2 and  switched to NT so
that he could "Blow up people in Quakeworld," and "Play with
ziptools," and for someone with such low self-esteem that he
had to invent an alter ego to give himself the impression of
omnipotence, you shouldn't stick your head up above the mud
to croak.

Seeing as your are too obtuse to understand the English
language when it is before you on the page - the tagline is
saying that you can choose not use OS/2 - but no matter how
much malicious drivel that your psychosis compels you to
spew forth - you are going to have to live with the fact
that it is not going to go away.



εDavid - the faker -McCoy

________________________________________________________

[RJ]                 OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman          Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan       [e-mail]

To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             28-Oct-99 11:56:03
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7v85t5$1lq$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>>>>> [dt] >>> No, I do not.  "Implements" by itself does not
eliminate
> >>>>>> [dt] >>> any ambiguity.  In the present case, [[[[the
> >>>>>> [dt] >>> ambiguity]]]] is
>
> > My exact thesis in the "costly mistakes" thread
>
> On the contrary, Lucien, your "exact thesis" in that thread involved
> "X bar syntax", which has nothing to do with the presence or absence
> of other information.

1) My thesis was that the "costly mistakes" and "implements
functionality" situations are ambiguous WRT quantification in the
absence of peri-verbal information. Your statement about
the "implements" sentence:

[dt]"The word 'implements' does allow for [[[[either 'some' or
[dt]'all']]]] functionality, [[[[in the absence of any other
[dt]information.]]]]"

is congruent with my thesis statement.

2) You several times make reference to "the ambiguity" proving that you
affirm its existence, for example:

"No, I do not.  'Implements' by itself does not eliminate
any ambiguity.  In the present case, [[[[the ambiguity]]]] is..."

Your statements constitute proof that you agree with my thesis.

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]               27-Oct-99 19:14:29
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: 1999 Warp OS/2 vs Windows 2000

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:36:46 -0500, Kelly Robinson wrote:

>If you ask me, any IT professional worth a damn ain't gonna upgrade to
>nuttin' until at least mid-2000 when the Y2K crisis is over with.
>
>Anyone changing things or upgrading right now is playing with fire.

Never say never.   Just ran into a guy who said their management decided to
do a roll out of 1000 NT stations to replace OS/2 because - get this: they
don't want to apply fixpaks to their OS/2 stations to make them Y2K
compliant.

The roll out is scheduled in 4 weeks!!!!     (What kind of idiots runs
companies these days?)

(He was asking for help!   He said testing has shown that it will take at
least 4 hours per machine)



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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  27-Oct-99 22:36:25
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

> > You tried that so-called "evidence" once before, Marty.  Those aren't
> > "song lyrics".

They're not "song lyrics" like Tholen's not an "astronomer."

> They are parody song lyrics.  He took a 1970's pop song and altered the
> lyrics.  To be more exact, he used the chorus from "You're So Vain" by
> Carly Simon.  And you answered them line by line.  However, since he did
> not identify them as a parody, it was left to the reader to interpret them
> as such.  That's a tactical error on his part.  Any reader who did not
> know the original song would not recognize them as song lyrics, and so
> for that reader, they are not song lyrics.

Darn few people living in western civilization who were of song-knowing age
during the 70s would make that mistake.  Marty was quite right to assume it
was a common bit of knowledge.  And, moreover, it was hiliarious!



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

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

From: [e-mail]                               27-Oct-99 22:53:12
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Joe Malloy wrote:
>
> Darn few people living in western civilization who were of song-knowing age
                  ^^^^^^
> during the 70s would make that mistake.  Marty was quite right to assume it
> was a common bit of knowledge.  And, moreover, it was hiliarious!

Well that's the key word now, isn't it?  ;-)

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          28-Oct-99 03:30:07
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Marty <[e-mail]>
>Now Dave, the twit, is telling me the meaning of what I wrote, in
>contrast to the meaning I just spelled out.

>One more time for the feeble-minded (DAVE: THIS MEANS YOU)-

>I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.
>Perhaps after the third or forth indentation and reply, even Tholen may
>catch on, but I'm not too hopeful.

Tholen is not very bright. He has shown, again and again, on Usenet,
that he is incapable of exhibiting even minimal comprehension of the
world around him, and that his "thinking" is completely devoid of
anything even approaching common sense.

I'm sure you realize this by now.

But, do you realize that, by addressing Tholen, you're addressing
someone who is mentally ill? I'm not just talking about whether he's
"relaxed". I mean that he has major psychological problems. He's not
even close to anything resembling normal human behavior

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 03:23:28
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Well that's the key word now, isn't it?  ;-)

Not at all, Marty.  "Infantile game" are the key words.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 03:28:20
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Now Dave, the twit,

Typical invective.  No logical argument, eh Marty?

> is telling me the meaning of what I wrote,

On the contrary, I'm telling you what you wrote, Marty.

> in contrast to the meaning I just spelled out.

Incorrect, Marty.  Additional evidence is provided by the fact that
you chose to delete the text to which you are referring.

> One more time for the feeble-minded (DAVE: THIS MEANS YOU)-

Typical invective.  No logical argument, eh Marty?

> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.

On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example of
a "lie/game" on my part.

> Perhaps after the third or forth indentation and reply,

Impossible, given that you've chosen to delete the evidence, Marty.

> even Tholen may catch on, but I'm not too hopeful.

Typical invective.  Here, let me restore that which you apparently
find embarassing:

M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
M] Dave's part.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                      28-Oct-99 03:37:07
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
  David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:

<snip>

> Borland was never an OS/2 company and SPG decide to bail on OS/2 and
> live, which they are doing, than stay with OS/2 and go broke.

But his point was that SPG, and others, supposedly left OS/2 to make
big honk'n bucks in the windows market. And that it sure doesn't look
like they've accomplished this. (Are they living well? I don't know.)

SPG is a great example, IMO. In OS/2, they were *the* graphics
application. If you wanted a good OS/2 photo-editing program, you
bought ColorWorks. In Windows-land, however, they're just another damn
PhotoShop clone.

While it's totally un-provable, and completely baseless (so don't get
all worked up about it), one could speculate that if many of the OS/2
ISVs who left for the Windows market had stayed that OS/2's history
could have been different.

--
-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]                               28-Oct-99 00:07:03
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > Joe Malloy wrote:
> >
> > > Darn few people living in western civilization who were of song-knowing
> >                   ^^^^^^
> > > age during the 70s would make that mistake.  Marty was quite right to
> > > assume it was a common bit of knowledge.  And, moreover, it was
hiliarious!
> >
> > Well that's the key word now, isn't it?  ;-)
>
> Not at all, Marty.  "Infantile game" are the key words.

Funny, but no one seems to have mentioned that here other than you.  But
don't let that stop you.  Play on, Dave.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                      28-Oct-99 04:06:13
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:04
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])

David T. Johnson? ([e-mail]?) wrote (Wed, 27 Oct 1999 15:59:28 -0
>So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
>their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?

                                   I wouldn't be surprised if more Windows
ISVs
                                    pop up daily than there ever were for
OS/2,
                                               and most of those will go
under.

                                        You need a -selling- product to stay
in
                                             the business of -selling-
low-cost
                                                  software (obvious as that
is,
                                                       some just don't get
it).


























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































(read twice for full effect)

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 00:20:02
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:05
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.
>
> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example of
> a "lie/game" on my part.

I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.

[snip]

> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> find embarassing:
>
> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
> M] Dave's part.

While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
question?  Here you go:
>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.

>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
>>> better than you, Marty?

>> Reading comprehension problems?

Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.  The
rest of us have.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 04:22:22
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:05
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> Well that's the key word now, isn't it?  ;-)

>> Not at all, Marty.  "Infantile game" are the key words.

> Funny, but no one seems to have mentioned that here other than you.

Funny, but no one seems to be the target of your "infantile game"
besides me.

> But don't let that stop you.

Stop me from doing what, Marty?

> Play on, Dave.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
the one playing the "infantile game".

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     27-Oct-99 21:27:09
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:05
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


"[e-mail]" wrote:

> David T. Johnson? ([e-mail]?) wrote (Wed, 27 Oct 1999 15:59:28
-0
> >So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
> >their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?
>
>                                    I wouldn't be surprised if more Windows
ISVs
>                                     pop up daily than there ever were for
OS/2,
>                                                and most of those will go
under.

If you wouldn't be surprised then you are not thinking, not paying attention.
These new Windows ISVs..they sure ain't popping up in Silicon Valley.  No-one
with
half a brain in IT is wasting time fighting for that fraction of the Windows
market
MS hasn't taken when the Internet start-ups with IPOs are making everyone
rich.
There are too many opportunity costs.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 04:25:18
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:05
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.

>> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example of
>> a "lie/game" on my part.

> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.

Illogically, given that you made no reference to any misspelling,
Marty.  Meanwhile, you did make a reference to an alleged "lie/game".

> [snip]

Too embarassing for you, Marty?

>> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
>> find embarassing:
>>
>> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
>> M] Dave's part.

> While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
> question?

What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?

> Here you go:

>>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
Marty?

>>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.

>>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
>>>> better than you, Marty?

>>> Reading comprehension problems?

> Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.

What alleged embarassment, Marty?

> The rest of us have.

Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part for
anyone to realize, Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     27-Oct-99 21:35:02
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:05
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Dale Ross wrote:

> > Mr. Dale Ross, may years ago.
>
> However Mr. Dale Ross never posted here as an MVP. Anything I did then and
> now outside the Microsoft "world", then Microsoft's CompuServe forums, today
> microsoft.public.* is not recognized by Microsoft.

MVP began in 1996.  During the time you posted on COOA it did not exist.  When
you did post you were joined by a MS employee who insisted on giving what was
called helpful advice on OS/2.  At the time you posted to COOA you were active
in the support and advocacy of windows and MS.  I would NOT want to split
hairs
on the MVP program's beginning and the kind of programmatic and advocacy work
that was common place prior to 1996.


> That means that every
> user I helped in comp.os.ms-windows.nt.*, the BBS world etc. did not count
> towards the MVP program. And Microsoft has never supported/suggested posting
> by an MVP in the *.advocacy hierarchy of groups.

By count in the MVP program you mean count for in MVP credits ?

> And the names I've seen thrown out as Microsoft MVPs in this thread...
> Unless they have another name, they do not show up in the Microsoft MVP
> roster. I've never heard of them, I've never seen any of their posts.
> Perhaps the knowledgeable folks here could tell us which products they are
> an MVP for.

One would say some of the folks who frequented the OS/2 newsgroups when MS was
shipping NT vaporware and the crippled NT 3.1 are now in the MVP program.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     27-Oct-99 21:39:06
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:05
Subj: Re: 1999 Warp OS/2 vs Windows 2000

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Kim Cheung wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:36:46 -0500, Kelly Robinson wrote:
>
> >If you ask me, any IT professional worth a damn ain't gonna upgrade to
> >nuttin' until at least mid-2000 when the Y2K crisis is over with.
> >
> >Anyone changing things or upgrading right now is playing with fire.
>
> Never say never.   Just ran into a guy who said their management decided to
> do a roll out of 1000 NT stations to replace OS/2 because - get this: they
> don't want to apply fixpaks to their OS/2 stations to make them Y2K
> compliant.
>
> The roll out is scheduled in 4 weeks!!!!     (What kind of idiots runs
> companies these days?)
>
> (He was asking for help!   He said testing has shown that it will take at
> least 4 hours per machine)

Get this, NT with FP 4 applied is not fully Y2K compliant.

IMHO they'll blame the problems on "Y2K " and  therefore have an excuse for
the
problems and additional spending.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     27-Oct-99 21:47:28
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:05
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Dale Ross wrote:

> "Mark" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>
>
> Advocacy; looking up the word the answer is no the MVP group is not an
> advocacy group. An MVP does not plead a case for Microsoft. They do not
> defend Microsoft. In fact many MVPs would not consider promoting a Microsoft
> product. I've met MVPs that dislike Microsoft as a company.

Many OS/2 advocates do not plead the case for IBM, they do not defend IBM and
they do not like IBM as a company.  Disliking MS and or IBM and not defending
MS
or IBM does not disqualify someone from being an Advocate for Windows or OS/2.
They advocate MS technology and MS software.

Advocacy can take many forms and one is becoming an expert in software and
helping people.  I'm not sure the hair splitting you've done would convince
anyone that MVPs are not advocate or helping MS.  Splitting that hair might
help
those who what to rationalize why they help the largest company in the US with
one of the largest profit margins on the planet.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 04:53:24
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:05
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: [e-mail] (Esther Schindler)

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:59:28, "David T. Johnson"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

| So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
| their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?

* The folks who made VxREXX. (Can't think of the company name at the
moment, but it's doing quite well.)

* Computer Associates published several OS/2 apps in the 2.x days --
and they're doing mighty fine without OS/2, too.

There's others, I'm sure, but I'd probably have to visit the boxes of
ex-OS/2 apps in the garage for inspiration.

Most of the "dropped OS/2" failures were, however, small companies who
realized that they couldn't make a living in the OS/2 market. They
turned their attention elsewhere (whether by dropping OS/2 entirely or
embracing another OS in addition) as an emergency measure. For many of
those companies, the ship's course was already set, and they turned
the boat too late.

Borland, for instance, made a LOT of mistakes, and set itself on a
crash course. I'm amused that you present them as a serious OS/2
vendor, because the only reason they did a C++ compiler for OS/2 is
that IBM paid them a wicked sum of money to do so. By that point,
their commitment was to a contract, not to the platform and certainly
not to the users. (Borland's commitment in the 1.x days was something
else entirely -- the very first OS/2 app to ship was Sidekick -- but
they were burned by that experience, and probably swore not to do
*that* again.)

(I'm always astonished when ire is directed at the vendors who tried
really hard to keep the boat afloat, by whatever means necessary;
*nobody* likes to disappoint customers, but their ability to put kitty
kibble in the bowl presupposes that you're making a profit. The OS/2
window of opportunity was very small, and most OS/2 ISVs literally bet
the house on their commitment to the platform. It gripes my heart to
have people get angry at them.)

--Esther

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 01:05:17
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:05
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > Play on, Dave.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
> the one playing the "infantile game".

Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.  You
know better than that Dave.  Or perhaps you don't.  Keep on playing.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     27-Oct-99 22:01:11
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:05
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


"David H. McCoy" wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >Can anyone think of an ISV that formerly developed and sold a
> >substantial OS/2 product and then stopped selling it "cold turkey" in
> >favor a Windows version?  You know the story:  OS/2 is a dying
> >platform.  There are hardly any OS/2 users.  The OS/2 marketplace is
> >dead.  There are hundreds of millions of Windows users who throw money
> >at software like sailors do at naked women.  Etc.  Etc.  So what has
> >happened to these OS/2 ISVs?
> >
> >Microrim used to sell a product called R:base for OS/2.  Now, Microrim
> >seems to be gone.  There is a small company called Rbase Technologies
> >that seems to still sell R:base but they do not appear to be very
> >prosperous.
> >
> >SPG used to sell a program called Colorworks for OS/2.  They stopped
> >with the OS/2 product and moved to Windows with a critically-acclaimed
> >"Colorworks:Web3."  Now, they sell "Colorworks:Web4" and advertise their
> >contract programming services on their web site.  It doesn't look like
> >there will be an IPO anytime soon.
> >
> >Borland was a large software company that sold development tools for
> >OS/2 including a C++ compiler and application builders like
> >ObjectVision.  Now they are smaller-sized company called Borland/Inprise
> >and their biggest product seems to be a Java enterprise development tool
> >called Jbuilder.  They look to be doing OK but not exactly setting the
> >world on fire.
> >
> >So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
> >their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?
> >
>
> Now, let's here it for all the all OS/2 companies going IPO.
> <quiet>
> Okay, how about just the all OS/2 companies making a good living, let alone
a
> great one.
> <real quiet>

Maybe it is just that I live in Silicon Valley because what you suggest is
plain
out of touch.  Let's hear about all the windows ISV who are going public?
Unless
you have halucinations, there are none of which I am aware.  That is a dead
market.  Are windows ISVs doing well?  Yeah as they leave classic windows and
work on web related stuff or working on interoperability of windows with other
systems.  It would be stupid to think of going public (or even entering the
Windows ISV market) rather than recalibrate the company as a OS neutral web
company.


> Borland was never an OS/2 company and SPG decide to bail on OS/2 and live,
> which they are doing, than stay with OS/2 and go broke.

Borland was a predominately windows ISV who did some OS/2 work with the
intention
of having IBM pay them for the development - that failed.  They also had every
good idea copied by MS and then fought MS on unlevel ground as MS hired their
best - like Brad Silverberg.  They are a shadow of their former selves.  SPG
--
what are they doing?  Do they have some shareware plug in for Adobe?

ISVs... hmm.   How about SPC and Harvard Graphics? or  Wordperfect?  Or
Netmanage?  These were companies that did revenues in the HUNDREDS of millions
in
the 80's and early 90's.  Listing windows ISVs would be more appropriate on
November 1st, Day of the Dead.  The winners are bought out by MS like Visio
which
means all Visio competitors are dead meat.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                           28-Oct-99 01:03:29
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:05
Subj: Re: MS is still afraid of OS/2

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 10/26/99 at 07:06 PM,
   David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> said:

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

MS has stopped paying you so go away, you worthless lemming.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
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]                               28-Oct-99 01:16:02
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:05
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.
>
> >> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example of
> >> a "lie/game" on my part.
>
> > I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.
>
> Illogically,

Are you still too blind to see it?  I used the word "blatant".  I would
have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past) if Mike had not
corrected me.  I thanked him after using the correct spelling.  Get over
it, moron.  A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.

> >> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> >> find embarassing:
> >>
> >> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
> >> M] Dave's part.
>
> > While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
> > question?
>
> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?

The one which led me to question your reading comprehension facilities.

> > Here you go:
>
> >>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>
> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
> Marty?

Nothing, which is why I wasn't referring to it.

> >>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>
> >>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
> >>>> better than you, Marty?

The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.  Hence my
commentary below.  Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's painfully
obvious by now anyway.

> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
>
> > Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.
>
> What alleged embarassment, Marty?

Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.  Must have tried to
change the subject to avoid some embarassment.  Too bad it didn't work.

> > The rest of us have.
>
> Impossible, given that there is no embarassment on my part for
> anyone to realize, Marty.

Quite possible indeed.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     27-Oct-99 22:15:16
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:05
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Esther Schindler wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:59:28, "David T. Johnson"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>

> Borland, for instance, made a LOT of mistakes, and set itself on a
> crash course. I'm amused that you present them as a serious OS/2
> vendor, because the only reason they did a C++ compiler for OS/2 is
> that IBM paid them a wicked sum of money to do so. By that point,
> their commitment was to a contract, not to the platform and certainly
> not to the users. (Borland's commitment in the 1.x days was something
> else entirely -- the very first OS/2 app to ship was Sidekick -- but
> they were burned by that experience, and probably swore not to do
> *that* again.)

You are right that Borland saw OS/2 development as a way to make money off
contracts for the development, not on the software sales.  The compiler was
buggy.  Ironically Borland developed OWL which was technically better than
and more portable than MFC.  OWL would have had some niche if it was on
OS/2 and Windows but Borland and Kahn's ego lead them to ignore OS/2 and
fight MS on Windows.   I know of many ISVs who used Borland's integrated
C++ and OWL but had not advantage not following MS.  At some release of MC
C++ and MFC they know had to switch to MFC and MS C++.  Had Borland and OWL
been stronger as a cross platform tool they might have kept commercial
customers and helped IBM sell OS/2.  Those few ISVs who did not leave
Borland's C++ and OWL were stranded.

I can't imagine any problems they had with IBM that would even come close
to parallel the problems Borland had with MS.


> (I'm always astonished when ire is directed at the vendors who tried
> really hard to keep the boat afloat, by whatever means necessary;
> *nobody* likes to disappoint customers, but their ability to put kitty
> kibble in the bowl presupposes that you're making a profit. The OS/2
> window of opportunity was very small, and most OS/2 ISVs literally bet
> the house on their commitment to the platform. It gripes my heart to
> have people get angry at them.)

You can say the same for many a Windows ISV.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            28-Oct-99 05:16:07
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 11:18:05
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

"Joseph" <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> MVP began in 1996.  During the time you posted on COOA it did not exist.

This is not true. The MVP program began in 1993. The MVP did exist during
the time that I posted in the *.advocacy groups.

> When
> you did post you were joined by a MS employee who insisted on giving what
was
> called helpful advice on OS/2.  At the time you posted to COOA you were
active
> in the support and advocacy of windows and MS.  I would NOT want to split
hairs
> on the MVP program's beginning and the kind of programmatic and advocacy
work
> that was common place prior to 1996.

No need to split hairs. Apparently like most folks here you know little to
nothing about the MVP program.

> > That means that every
> > user I helped in comp.os.ms-windows.nt.*, the BBS world etc. did not
count
> > towards the MVP program. And Microsoft has never supported/suggested
posting
> > by an MVP in the *.advocacy hierarchy of groups.
>
> By count in the MVP program you mean count for in MVP credits ?

What is an MVP credit?

> > And the names I've seen thrown out as Microsoft MVPs in this thread...
> > Unless they have another name, they do not show up in the Microsoft MVP
> > roster. I've never heard of them, I've never seen any of their posts.
> > Perhaps the knowledgeable folks here could tell us which products they
are
> > an MVP for.
>
> One would say some of the folks who frequented the OS/2 newsgroups when MS
was
> shipping NT vaporware and the crippled NT 3.1 are now in the MVP program.

No not too many of them are. In fact I cannot name a single one besides
myself. Can you?

Dale


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 12:38:27
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>>>>>> [dt] >>> No, I do not.  "Implements" by itself does not
>>>>>>>> [dt] >>> eliminate any ambiguity.  In the present case,
>>>>>>>> [dt] >>> [[[[the ambiguity]]]] is

>>> My exact thesis in the "costly mistakes" thread

>> On the contrary, Lucien, your "exact thesis" in that thread involved
>> "X bar syntax", which has nothing to do with the presence or absence
>> of other information.

> 1) My thesis was that the "costly mistakes" and "implements
> functionality" situations are ambiguous WRT quantification in the
> absence of peri-verbal information.

Your thesis is wrong, given that neither case, as presented (which
means the former included "prevent" and the latter included a
reference to Java 1.1.8) is ambiguous.

> Your statement about the "implements" sentence:
>
> [dt]"The word 'implements' does allow for [[[[either 'some' or
> [dt]'all']]]] functionality, [[[[in the absence of any other
> [dt]information.]]]]"
>
> is congruent with my thesis statement.

But it doesn't apply to the present situation, given that we have
presence of additional information.  Just how many times do I need
to tell you that before it sinks in, Lucien?

> 2) You several times make reference to "the ambiguity" proving that
> you affirm its existence,

Not in the present case, Lucien.

> for example:
>
> "No, I do not.  'Implements' by itself does not eliminate
> any ambiguity.  In the present case, [[[[the ambiguity]]]] is..."

..resolved...

I see you still don't like to continue the sentence because it
contradicts what you're trying to say.

> Your statements constitute proof that you agree with my thesis.

Your reading comprehension problem constitutes proof that you
don't even know what my statements are, thus your conclusion is
invalid.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  28-Oct-99 08:41:02
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Oy!  Something claiming to be a <[e-mail]> tried to spell
and ended up tholening:

> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.
>
> >> Illogically,
>
> > Are you still too blind to see it?
>
> There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
> halluncinating?

Gee, Tholen, I see an error of spelling and it's yours.  Or, since you made
the mistake, are you going to argue that it was an acceptable means of
spelling that word?  In the likely event of the latter, I think you're
"hullancinnatink."


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  28-Oct-99 08:45:20
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something like a <[e-mail]> made up stuff and therefore
tholened:

> Funny, but no one seems to be the target of your "infantile game"
> besides me.

Funny, but the only person who is playing any "infantile game" is the chief
infant of the group, one Tholen.



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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 08:46:28
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Jim Frost <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:
> I think you are missing my point which is that former OS/2 software
> vendors apparently are not thriving after moving to Windows.  Frankly,
> this is surprising to me.  I would have thought that random chance by
> itself would mean that some of these companies would have made it big in
> Windows.  I was wondering if I was just seeing a few isolated companies
> and missing some other success stories or if this general trend is
> really true.

A couple of points:

1. They were presumably not thriving under OS/2 either, or they wouldn't have
dumped it.

2. Companies accustomed to competing in niche markets often have trouble
competing in mainstream markets.  This is particularly the case for products
written for one OS that were ported to another; they usually lack the
smoothness of natively written products.

> Well, Borland started with a DOS TSR program called "Sidekick" written
> by Phillipe Kahn.  Then they came up with a development tool called
> "Turbo Pascal." which was pretty good.

As I remember it SideKick came after Turbo Pascal.  (Anyone remember Turbo
Pascal for CP/M?)

> What is happening to the software industry?  This is a
> bigger issue than just boosting OS/2 or Windows, IMO.

The desktop PC software industry is a mature, commodity industry.  It is
difficult for smaller companies to survive in such an industry.  The
innovative part of the software industry is moving on -- to server software
(made terrifically interesting by the Internet) and to new platforms like
handhelds.

jim frost
[e-mail]

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  28-Oct-99 08:49:03
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something sorta like a <[e-mail]> tholened yet again:

> > Now Dave, the twit,
>
> No logical argument, eh Marty?

Prove that calling you by an accurate name means that one does not have a
"logical argument," Tholen, if you think you can.



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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  28-Oct-99 12:51:22
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Jim Stuyck <[e-mail]>


Karel Jansens wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:53:48, [e-mail] (Esther Schindler)
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:59:28, "David T. Johnson"
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > | So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
> > | their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?
> >
> > * The folks who made VxREXX. (Can't think of the company name at the
> > moment, but it's doing quite well.)
> >
> > * Computer Associates published several OS/2 apps in the 2.x days --
> > and they're doing mighty fine without OS/2, too.
> >
> [snip]
> One would be hard pressed to call CA an OS/2 ISV. I mean, the whole
> PC-business is more like a hobby for those guys...

Oh, they were pretty serious about OS/2 at one time.  I arranged for
CA to make a product demonstration at a Dallas/Fort Worth OS/2 User's
Group meeting.  They paid the postage for a bulk mailing to our
membership (at that time, roughly 500-600 postcards), handed out
freebies, and so on.  Of course, that was then, this is now.  ;-)

Jim Stuyck

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: J. D. Stuyck and Associates -- Retired (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                  28-Oct-99 08:53:11
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Oy vey/ach weh, something demonstrating pigheadedness like a
<[e-mail]> tholened:

> Obviously not, Marty.  I see you didn't answer my question.  It figures.

Obviously not, Tholen.  I see you never answer any questions asked of you.
It figures.



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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 08:56:03
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Jim Frost <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
> While it's totally un-provable, and completely baseless (so don't get
> all worked up about it), one could speculate that if many of the OS/2
> ISVs who left for the Windows market had stayed that OS/2's history
> could have been different.

No, it couldn't.  OS/2 had the single unsurmountable problem that it was made
and marketed by IBM, which also made and marketed PC hardware.  No other PC
hardware maker in their right mind would trust IBM not to take advantage of
that arrangement.

This is a large part of why Microsoft has been so wildly successful: they sold
their stuff to *anyone*.  And it's also a large part of why vendors have gone
looking for alternatives to Microsoft in recent days: they started playing
favorites.

There are a whole wealth of other reasons why OS/2 would have had a hard time
against even moderately capable competition but that one fact was the stake in
the heart of the product and very nicely explains why it was that the product
lost to a vastly less capable Windows.

jim frost
[e-mail]

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  28-Oct-99 12:56:09
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Jim Stuyck <[e-mail]>


Esther Schindler wrote:

> Borland, for instance, made a LOT of mistakes, and set itself on a
> crash course. I'm amused that you present them as a serious OS/2
> vendor, because the only reason they did a C++ compiler for OS/2 is
> that IBM paid them a wicked sum of money to do so. By that point,
> their commitment was to a contract, not to the platform and certainly
> not to the users. (Borland's commitment in the 1.x days was something
> else entirely -- the very first OS/2 app to ship was Sidekick -- but
> they were burned by that experience, and probably swore not to do
> *that* again.)

You may recall that there was even a Sidekick user's guide packed
into one release's boxed OS/2.  But Sidekick was a BAD application.
Slow...  IBMers had the IBM Internal Use Only package that they
could use and most of us found it superior to Sidekick in just about
every way imaginable.  That stuff later became part of OS/2 "as is"
applications.

Jim Stuyck

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: J. D. Stuyck and Associates -- Retired (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                  28-Oct-99 08:54:27
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something dumb pretending to be a <[e-mail]> tholened:

> > They are parody song lyrics.
>
> That doesn't mean they are "song lyrics".

It figures Tholen's too dumb to understand the concept of "parody."  That's
rather odd, however, since he seems to be nothing but a parody of himself.



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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 09:07:17
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: Win2k & OS/2

From: Jim Frost <[e-mail]>

John Hong wrote:
>         It's pretty amazing the difference how Microsoft and IBM go about
> treating their products, really.  With Microsoft, we are seeing delay and
> delay on their new Windows 2000, I just saw it today on a news broadcast
> that it won't be ready until Feburary of next year.  Man, that'd have to
> suck for anyone who has been really wanting to depend on that.
> Especially since it was only earlier this year that they were saying that
> they would have it out before the end of this year.
>         With IBM, it's a different thing altogether.  They don't make any
> noise whatsoever about OS/2.

You must be new to the game.  IBM made really, really big noises about OS/2
1.0, 2.0, and PPC.  None of them shipped anywhere near on time.  The PPC
product, hyped endlessly in the trade press, was thoroughly stillborn.  Warp
was the only OS/2 release that could be said to have gone smoothly and that
was really just a layering on of more stuff on the basic existing package (ie
it was a major version in a marketing sense, not a technical one).

>         Another thing is that Microsoft treats their products like it is
> the greatest thing since slice bread, even if it ends up being the
> biggest piece of crap ever produced.  Sort of a blind evangelistic
> approach that *all* of Microsoft believes in.

This is good marketing.  You have a hard time selling stuff when you're not
positive about it.  It's up to competitors to punch holes in your story and
you'll notice that some Microsoft competitors like Oracle and Sun have done a
pretty good job at that.

jim frost
[e-mail]

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 09:31:15
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Can anyone believe this shit?

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.
>
> >>>> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example of
> >>>> a "lie/game" on my part.
>
> >>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.
>
> >> Illogically,
>
> > Are you still too blind to see it?
>
> There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
> halluncinating?

Are you still too blind to see it?  Answer: Yes.

> > I used the word "blatant".
>
> You also used the word "following", Marty.  You also used the word
> "another", Marty.  You also used "lie/game".

Irrelevant, jackass.  Perhaps if you didn't cut the sentence there and
read on, you might understand, though in light of your argument below, I
don't find that incredibly likely.

> > I would have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past)
> > if Mike had not corrected me.
>
> Illogical, given that I called your attention to your misspelling
> of "hypocrisy" and you still got it wrong after that.

So therefore I would always do the same, no matter who corrects me?  Not
only illogical, but moronic Dave.  I said I would have spelled it wrong
if he had not corrected me.  He had corrected me and I have henceforth
spelled it correctly.  I don't expect you to understand.

> > I thanked him after using the correct spelling.
>
> There's no reference to any misspelling, Marty.

That's because I spelled it correctly this time.  The "reference" was
the correctly spelled word.

> > Get over it, moron.
>
> Typical invective, coming from someone without a logical argument.
> No surprise there.

No need for logic in this argument.  The facts are obvious to anyone
with an IQ above that of a 3 toed sloth.

> > A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
>
> A two-year-old also won't see any reference to a misspelling, Marty.

A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now, but Dave cannot.

> >>>> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> >>>> find embarassing:
> >>>>
> >>>> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
> >>>> M] Dave's part.
>
> >>> While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
> >>> question?
>
> >> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
>
> > The one which led me to question your reading comprehension facilities.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of an "idiotically
> inappropriate" question, Marty.  What led you to question my reading
> comprehension facilities is your continuing "infantile game".

Speaking of infantile games, are you this stupid or is this more proof
of your own?

> >>> Here you go:
>
> >>>>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>
> >> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
> >> Marty?
>
> > Nothing,
>
> Then why did you call it "idiotically inappropriate", Marty?

I didn't, jackass.

> > which is why I wasn't referring to it.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Perhaps you were so eager to answer that you forgot to read the rest of
the sentence.

> Incorrect, Marty.  Here's the relevant excerpt from your posting:

Now you are telling me what I was referring to, after repeated
corrections on my part.  How moronic.

> M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
> M] question?  Here you go:
> M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>
> >>>>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>
> >>>>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
> >>>>>> better than you, Marty?
>
> > The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.
>
> Incorrect, given that you "Here you go" precedes a different question,
> Marty.

Now you are telling me what I was referring to, after repeated
corrections on my part.  How moronic.  I was referring to the above
question, which led me to question your reading comprehension facilities
below.  The "Here you go" stuff in the beginning was to provide context,
but I don't expect you to understand that concept.

> > Hence my commentary below.
>
> Not hence your introductory "Here you go", Marty.

The "Here you go" stuff in the beginning was to provide context, but I
don't expect you to understand that concept.

> > Don't bother to admit your mistake.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing an error on my part, Marty.

Don't bother to admit your mistake.  It's even more painfully obvious by
now anyway.

> >>>>> Reading comprehension problems?
>
> >>> Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.
>
> >> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>
> > Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.
>
> Note the lack of admission, Marty.

Note the lack of intelligence.  The rest of us have.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 09:38:19
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>> Play on, Dave.
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
> >> the one playing the "infantile game".
>
> > Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.
>
> I've done more than just say so, Marty.

Yes.  I suppose you might actually believe it too.  That still doesn't
make it any more true.

> I've reproduced evidence that supports the claim.

Incorrect.

> > You know better than that Dave.
>
> Fortunately, I've done more than just say it.

Yes, but your beliefs are irrelevant to others.

> > Or perhaps you don't.
>
> Perhaps not.

Glad you agree.

> > Keep on playing.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
> the one playing the "infantile game".

Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.  You
know better than that Dave.  Or perhaps you don't.  Keep on playing.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 09:49:03
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Jim Frost <[e-mail]>

Chad Myers wrote:
> > 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.

Works fine for me, too.  Something is amiss.

> > 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.

There are certainly cases where installing or upgrading Win98 flips the active
partition from whatever it was to Win98.  To their credit they tell you this
and how to fix it in the README file mentioned by the installer.

I'm not so pleased with the installer's implication that it's dangerous to
install Win98 in a multi-boot configuration but it's noteworthy that Win98
does this even if the other OS is NT.

> > 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)

Gotta agree with this.  Add GroupWise to the list.  "Novell" and "reliability"
are at odds with each other.

> > 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.

Note that the presence of these protocols (excepting MSCHAP) doesn't hurt
anything except perhaps in that it slows down the PPP handshaking slightly.
If the far end doesn't support the protocol it is rejected during the
handshake.

I can't say I've had a hard time connecting with ISPs with Windows or NT.
Most of them are streamlined for that case (presumably because it's most of
their market).

> 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.

There are some things that Linux really needs to improve (X11 configuration
being by far the worst -- it's horrible) but overall the commercial Linux
products (Red Hat in particular) have made terrific leaps and bounds and in a
lot of ways are markedly superior to Windows 98 at this point.

Outside of X11, for instance, it is markedly faster and easier to install Red
Hat 6.1 than either Windows 98 or NTSP5 and there is vastly (*VASTLY*) more
online documentation available in-the-box for doing pretty much anything you
care to try.  (For that matter there's more and better paper documentation
in-the-box than I've ever received with either Win9x or any version of NT.)
Hardware detection and management has improved drastically in Red Hat 6.1
versus 6.0, although support for things like laptop chipsets is still pretty
thin.

I'm using Linux full-time on my desktop and laptop machines now.  Other than
severe problems getting X11 configured for various monitors and video cards
it's awfully good; I only run Windows to get software that can't be had on
Linux (like DVD decoders and RealVideo).

jim frost
[e-mail]

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                      28-Oct-99 14:04:00
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:06
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])

Jim Frost? ([e-mail]?) wrote (Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:46:56 -0400):
>As I remember it SideKick came after Turbo Pascal.  (Anyone remember Turbo
>Pascal for CP/M?)

I was using it in '85, and it was version 2.14 as I recall (TP was).
Once was Turbo Wizard, as I recall, before Kahn bought it.

 http://x38.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=432840487

>The desktop PC software industry is a mature, commodity industry.  It is
>difficult for smaller companies to survive in such an industry.  The

Always was.  Just that now there are a lot more big fish, and they
gobble up 99% of the available dollar, leaving the rest to fight over
the fish heads, fish heads (if you want to look at it that way).

>innovative part of the software industry is moving on -- to server software
>(made terrifically interesting by the Internet) and to new platforms like

Internet, interesting?  It's really all the same old stuff, but I
suppose that really depends on what you're looking for.

>handhelds.


 '`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'

 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: [e-mail]                                 28-Oct-99 09:10:00
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:07
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Rob Hughes" <[e-mail]>

Bwhahahahahahahaha... Guess that would explain perfectly why I have so few
problems.

"Jim Frost" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> > > 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)
>
> Gotta agree with this.  Add GroupWise to the list.  "Novell" and
"reliability"
> are at odds with each other.
>
> jim frost
> [e-mail]




  -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeeds.com       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including  Dedicated  Binaries Servers
==-----

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 73,000+ UN
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             28-Oct-99 14:55:19
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7v9g4v$5c1$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> > 1) My thesis was that the "costly mistakes" and "implements
> > functionality" situations are ambiguous WRT quantification in the
> > absence of peri-verbal information.
>
> Your thesis is wrong,

On the contrary, my thesis is correct. See the "costly mistakes" thread
for the proof.

> > Your statement about the "implements" sentence:
> >
> > [dt]"The word 'implements' does allow for [[[[either 'some' or
> > [dt]'all']]]] functionality, [[[[in the absence of any other
> > [dt]information.]]]]"
> >
> > is congruent with my thesis statement.
>
> But it doesn't apply to the present situation, given that we have
> presence of additional information.

But it is still congruent with my thesis statement (taken directly from
the "costly mistakes" thread).

Besides, even if your assertion were true, the semantic result of the
additional info would only prove again the correctness of my thesis and
not yours.

Sorry, your witless statements put you in direct agreement with me.
Review the "costly mistakes" thread for the proof.

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]               28-Oct-99 08:55:21
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:07
Subj: Re: New Warp v4.5 Client...

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:00:28 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:

>From my chair, fat Windows clients look ridiculous.  No
>wonder enterprise sites are embracing thin clients like
>Workspace-on-Demand.  And no wonder SOHO users like us hang on to OS/2
>as long as we possibly can.

http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/columns/0,4351,2377721,00.html


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

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

From: [e-mail]                             28-Oct-99 09:04:07
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 14:45:07
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Esther Schindler wrote:
>
>
> Borland, for instance, made a LOT of mistakes, and set itself on a
> crash course. I'm amused that you present them as a serious OS/2
> vendor, because the only reason they did a C++ compiler for OS/2 is
> that IBM paid them a wicked sum of money to do so. By that point,
> their commitment was to a contract, not to the platform and certainly
> not to the users. (Borland's commitment in the 1.x days was something
> else entirely -- the very first OS/2 app to ship was Sidekick -- but
> they were burned by that experience, and probably swore not to do
> *that* again.)

What about "ObjectVision" for OS/2?  That was certainly a serious OS/2
product and IBM did not pay them to do it, AFAIK.

>
> (I'm always astonished when ire is directed at the vendors who tried
> really hard to keep the boat afloat, by whatever means necessary;
> *nobody* likes to disappoint customers, but their ability to put kitty
> kibble in the bowl presupposes that you're making a profit. The OS/2
> window of opportunity was very small, and most OS/2 ISVs literally bet
> the house on their commitment to the platform. It gripes my heart to
> have people get angry at them.)

I don't see where I am directing any "ire" at vendors, here.  This
certainly was not my intent.  I am always sorry to see OS/2 developers
stop developing for the platform but I think that is old news since most
OS/2 development now is by independent people doing shareware or
freeware.  And I want to see former OS/2 software companies doing well,
even if it is with Windows products.  Actually, what I am starting to
wonder is if companies who supported OS/2 at one time are being
targeted.  Look at what Intel is doing right now to motherboard
companies who are supporting AMD products.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 16:10:28
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 16:44:09
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: [e-mail] (Esther Schindler)

One of these days, I'll probably get wound up about the mistakes
Borland made. But that won't be today.

OS/2 was such a tiny part of Borland's woes that it's barely worth
mentioning.

--Esther

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 02:15:33, Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote:

|
|
| Esther Schindler wrote:
|
| > On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:59:28, "David T. Johnson"
| > <[e-mail]> wrote:
| >
|
| > Borland, for instance, made a LOT of mistakes, and set itself on a
| > crash course. I'm amused that you present them as a serious OS/2
| > vendor, because the only reason they did a C++ compiler for OS/2 is
| > that IBM paid them a wicked sum of money to do so. By that point,
| > their commitment was to a contract, not to the platform and certainly
| > not to the users. (Borland's commitment in the 1.x days was something
| > else entirely -- the very first OS/2 app to ship was Sidekick -- but
| > they were burned by that experience, and probably swore not to do
| > *that* again.)
|
| You are right that Borland saw OS/2 development as a way to make money off
| contracts for the development, not on the software sales.  The compiler was
| buggy.  Ironically Borland developed OWL which was technically better than
| and more portable than MFC.  OWL would have had some niche if it was on
| OS/2 and Windows but Borland and Kahn's ego lead them to ignore OS/2 and
| fight MS on Windows.   I know of many ISVs who used Borland's integrated
| C++ and OWL but had not advantage not following MS.  At some release of MC
| C++ and MFC they know had to switch to MFC and MS C++.  Had Borland and OWL
| been stronger as a cross platform tool they might have kept commercial
| customers and helped IBM sell OS/2.  Those few ISVs who did not leave
| Borland's C++ and OWL were stranded.
|
| I can't imagine any problems they had with IBM that would even come close
| to parallel the problems Borland had with MS.
|
|
| > (I'm always astonished when ire is directed at the vendors who tried
| > really hard to keep the boat afloat, by whatever means necessary;
| > *nobody* likes to disappoint customers, but their ability to put kitty
| > kibble in the bowl presupposes that you're making a profit. The OS/2
| > window of opportunity was very small, and most OS/2 ISVs literally bet
| > the house on their commitment to the platform. It gripes my heart to
| > have people get angry at them.)
|
| You can say the same for many a Windows ISV.
|


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 16:12:17
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 16:44:09
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: [e-mail] (Esther Schindler)

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:07:53, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
wrote:

| > * Computer Associates published several OS/2 apps in the 2.x days --
| > and they're doing mighty fine without OS/2, too.
| >
| [snip]
| One would be hard pressed to call CA an OS/2 ISV. I mean, the whole
| PC-business is more like a hobby for those guys...

As Jim said, they made a "college try" at desktop apps, which at the
time included OS/2. Unfortunately, most of them were terrible --
irrespective of platform. Remember CA Simply Accounting for OS/2? As I
said in my review, it wasn't simple, it wasn't accounting, and it
wasn't OS/2.

--Esther

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 16:26:23
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 16:44:09
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: [e-mail] (Esther Schindler)

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:56:19, Jim Stuyck <[e-mail]> wrote:

| You may recall that there was even a Sidekick user's guide packed
| into one release's boxed OS/2.  But Sidekick was a BAD application.
| Slow...  IBMers had the IBM Internal Use Only package that they
| could use and most of us found it superior to Sidekick in just about
| every way imaginable.  That stuff later became part of OS/2 "as is"
| applications.

Sidekick was bundled with OS/2 1.2. I used Sidekick for a lot of
"hands-on" examples when I was an instructor for Learning Tree's OS/2
class, so I got to know it pretty well. FWIW, it wasn't slow on a 386,
though I wouldn't be surprised if it were pokey on the 286s that were
common back then.

OTOH, I'd never have picked Sidekick as a likely app to use on OS/2.
Sidekick was a perfect example of what could be done with a TSR in a
single-tasking environment, but it wasn't particularly necessary for a
multitasking OS. If you could use a "real" phone book application in
another OS/2 window, why would you want the mini-one in Sidekick? And
so on.

I'm sure that Philippe made a smokin' deal with IBM and/or Microsoft,
at the time, and the message of the app bundle (that you could get
right to work, using brand-name apps) was a good one. (And oh dear, I
*do* miss having Philippe Kahn around. He's such a cool guy, and a
wonderful character.) But a "WordPerfect Lite for OS/2" would have
been much more useful, in the long run.

WordPerfect, of course, is another example of an ISV that was gung-ho
on OS/2 but later dropped it. (I'm personally convinced they dropped
the 6.x version because they wanted to look good on the balance sheet
for the Novell buyout, but that's another issue.) Like several other
big ISVs who jumped on the OS/2 bandwagon early, WordPerfect put an
enormous amount of development effort into the "sure thing" of OS/2,
while Microsoft quietly put *its* effort into Word for Windows.
Meanwhile, I recall a message WPCorp's Pete Petersen left in the
Compuserve forum saying that WPCorp had sold 6 copies of WP 5.0 for
OS/2. Six. Undoubtably, they sold more copies after that -- I was told
that 5.0 had some big bugs, and sales were 'slow' until they were
fixed -- but the point is that they didn't make money on OS/2, and had
to get it from somewhere else.

For the big name ISVs, OS/2 1.x development was a time, resource, and
money suck -- and you wonder why they were unenthusiastic about
creating new versions when 2.0 was promised Real Soon Now? We can all
point to the Evil Empire of Microsoft for the real damage (such as MS
working on Excel for Windows while Lotus was actively writing 1-2-3/G
for OS/2 -- on which I contracted, at the time), but nonetheless those
companies were burnt badly by OS/2. If Microsoft was taking away their
market "where the money was" (ie Windows) then their own survival
required that they put _all_ their resources into trying to get it
back or maintain what they had... which meant Windows.

--Esther

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                       28-Oct-99 16:14:06
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 16:44:09
Subj: Re: Giga says Win2k worth the money

From: Illya Vaes <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>Microsoft designed Windows 2000 from the ground up [...]

Ah, the Windows 95 approach.
That tells any critical reader enough, methinks.

--
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]                             28-Oct-99 10:20:12
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 16:44:09
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Dale Ross wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> No need to split hairs. Apparently like most folks here you know little to
> nothing about the MVP program.

Microsoft isn't actually broadcasting MVP info on the airwaves.  As John
Dvorak points out in this column, even the MS website does not describe
the program but it is, as he points out, very "spooky."  We have no way
of knowing what Microsoft considers to be "support" as opposed to
"advocacy."  Microsoft, after all, is the company with the famous online
OS/2 basher "Steve Bartko" to its credit, who turned out to be a
Microsoft employee being paid to go online under the Steve Bartko
alias.  There is no way to know WHO is in the MVP program, what they do
to get "MVP bucks," and how many MVP Bucks they get for it.  Only
Microsoft knows this.  But it looks pretty clear that MVP participants
are paid to do whatever it is they do.

>
> > > That means that every
> > > user I helped in comp.os.ms-windows.nt.*, the BBS world etc. did not
> count
> > > towards the MVP program. And Microsoft has never supported/suggested
> posting
> > > by an MVP in the *.advocacy hierarchy of groups.
> >
> > By count in the MVP program you mean count for in MVP credits ?
>
> What is an MVP credit?

If you read the John Dvorak column, he discusses "MVP Bucks."

>
> > > And the names I've seen thrown out as Microsoft MVPs in this thread...
> > > Unless they have another name, they do not show up in the Microsoft MVP
> > > roster. I've never heard of them, I've never seen any of their posts.
> > > Perhaps the knowledgeable folks here could tell us which products they
> are
> > > an MVP for.
> >
> > One would say some of the folks who frequented the OS/2 newsgroups when MS
> was
> > shipping NT vaporware and the crippled NT 3.1 are now in the MVP program.
>
> No not too many of them are. In fact I cannot name a single one besides
> myself. Can you?
>
So tell us, Dale, where can we see the official list of MVPs?  Or is it
confidential?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                       28-Oct-99 11:17:09
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 16:44:09
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Wayne Johnson <[e-mail]>


Esther Schindler wrote:

>

snip

> WordPerfect, of course, is another example of an ISV that was gung-ho
> on OS/2 but later dropped it. (I'm personally convinced they dropped
> the 6.x version because they wanted to look good on the balance sheet
> for the Novell buyout, but that's another issue.) Like several other
> big ISVs who jumped on the OS/2 bandwagon early, WordPerfect put an
> enormous amount of development effort into the "sure thing" of OS/2,
> while Microsoft quietly put *its* effort into Word for Windows.
> Meanwhile, I recall a message WPCorp's Pete Petersen left in the
> Compuserve forum saying that WPCorp had sold 6 copies of WP 5.0 for
> OS/2. Six. Undoubtably, they sold more copies after that -- I was told
> that 5.0 had some big bugs, and sales were 'slow' until they were
> fixed -- but the point is that they didn't make money on OS/2, and had
> to get it from somewhere else.

My brother seems to be one of the six people who actually purchased
WordPerfect for OS/2 and from what he has told me it was a terrible
product.  I don't remember any specifics, but from his experience it seems
that maybe WP version 6.x was dropped because the folks at WP could not
product a good OS/2 product.

Personally I still like WP.  I use version 7 at home and at work.  I only
use Word when I am forced to.

I miss OS/2.  I have only had to reboot my WIN98 box once so far today.

Wayne


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

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

From: [e-mail]               28-Oct-99 10:40:06
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 16:44:09
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On 28 Oct 1999 16:26:47 GMT, Esther Schindler wrote:

>For the big name ISVs, OS/2 1.x development was a time, resource, and
>money suck -- and you wonder why they were unenthusiastic about
>creating new versions when 2.0 was promised Real Soon Now? We can all

The only people that made it big are usually vertical apps.    In my
industry, you see Octel, Active Voice, and a number of other
Telecommunication companies that rack up big market shares over the years.
They all tend to do it quietly behind the scene and never made an attempt to
cooperate with other ISVs to deal with IBM and hardware manufacturers.
This is unfortunate because none are big enough to change the cause of
histroy - but if they would only band together, things would have been
different.

In fact, to this day, nobody knows what Octel runs inside their black box.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     28-Oct-99 20:02:24
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 16:44:09
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>

Regarding Borland....The Register
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/991028-000009.html) is reporting that Brad
Silverberg, who came to MS (lead Win95 development) from Borland,
finally resigned.

Corey


Esther Schindler wrote:
>
> One of these days, I'll probably get wound up about the mistakes
> Borland made. But that won't be today.
>
> OS/2 was such a tiny part of Borland's woes that it's barely worth
> mentioning.
>
> --Esther
>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Internet Access Eindhoven, the Netherlands (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                 28-Oct-99 18:24:02
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 16:44:09
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7v9c36$2e6$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>>> I looked at several files, including classes.zip.
>
>>>>> Where did you find this file, Mike?
>
>>>> In the JDK, you moron.  You asked for the name of the file in the JDK
>>>> that contains the information, so I gave you the name of a file in the
>>>> JDK.
>
>>> I donwloaded the JDK months ago, Mike.  There is no file named
>>> "classes.zip" among the files available for download.  Try again.
>
>> Dave, I didn't say you could download classes.zip separately,
>
>In which case your answer doesn't do any good, Mike.

On the contrary, I assumed that you had enough intelligence to navigate
IBM's web site and download the JDK.  Obviously, the challenge is too
great for you.

>Which file did you
>download that contains classes.zip?  In other words, take the position of
>the casual reader who wishes to verify your claims.  They can't find any
>separate classes.zip file, so which file should they download, Mike?

As I've said many times, it's in the JDK.  I assume that the casual reader
is intelligent enough to be able to find IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 on IBM's
web site and download it.

For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get when
you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.

>> I said that the file is *IN THE JDK*.
>
>In which file, Mike?  Which top-level file did you download that contains
>classes.zip?  Why do you continue to avoid answering the question?

I'm not avoiding the question at all -- you just keep changing the
questions you're asking, because you don't have the faintest idea
what you're talking about.

>> If you really downloaded (and installed) the JDK, then the file is
>> already on your system.
>
>Irrelevant, Mike.  I want to know where *you* saw the contents.

And I told you -- it's part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2.  Duh.

     - Mike

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             28-Oct-99 14:51:19
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 19:56:01
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Dale Ross wrote:
>
> > > What is an MVP credit?
> >
> > If you read the John Dvorak column, he discusses "MVP Bucks."
>
> So? That doesn't answer my question.

Well, here's what John Dvorak said:

"The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many
of these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks.
The concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP
home page seems to be discounts of some sort."

That is all of the information we and John Dvorak have.  Do you have
more?
>
> > > No not too many of them are. In fact I cannot name a single one besides
> > > myself. Can you?
> > >
> > So tell us, Dale, where can we see the official list of MVPs?  Or is it
> > confidential?
>
> Why don't you answer the question. Why must you answer the question with
> more questions? The reason, you guys are guessing. He stated it as if he
> knew what he was talking about. If you are answering his questions for him,
> then certainly you must know the answer.
>
I am not answering a question here, I am asking one.  If I knew the
answer, I would not ask it.  Do you know the answer?  And who are you
referring to with 'He stated it as if he knew what he was talking
about'?  Who is the 'he' here?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            28-Oct-99 20:13:11
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 19:56:01
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:12:34, [e-mail] (Esther Schindler)
wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:07:53, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
> wrote:
>
> | > * Computer Associates published several OS/2 apps in the 2.x days --
> | > and they're doing mighty fine without OS/2, too.
> | >
> | [snip]
> | One would be hard pressed to call CA an OS/2 ISV. I mean, the whole
> | PC-business is more like a hobby for those guys...
>
> As Jim said, they made a "college try" at desktop apps, which at the
> time included OS/2. Unfortunately, most of them were terrible --
> irrespective of platform. Remember CA Simply Accounting for OS/2? As I
> said in my review, it wasn't simple, it wasn't accounting, and it
> wasn't OS/2.
>
> --Esther

That one I don't remember. I quite liked CA Textor (the Windows
version) and I played a bit with Realiser (the OS/2 version), the
latter one until I realised that programming and I go together like...
like... - like two things that don't go together well.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            28-Oct-99 20:13:12
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 19:56:01
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:04:15, "David T. Johnson"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> Esther Schindler wrote:
> >
> >
> > Borland, for instance, made a LOT of mistakes, and set itself on a
> > crash course. I'm amused that you present them as a serious OS/2
> > vendor, because the only reason they did a C++ compiler for OS/2 is
> > that IBM paid them a wicked sum of money to do so. By that point,
> > their commitment was to a contract, not to the platform and certainly
> > not to the users. (Borland's commitment in the 1.x days was something
> > else entirely -- the very first OS/2 app to ship was Sidekick -- but
> > they were burned by that experience, and probably swore not to do
> > *that* again.)
>
> What about "ObjectVision" for OS/2?  That was certainly a serious OS/2
> product and IBM did not pay them to do it, AFAIK.
>
What?
There was an OS/2 version of ObjectVision?
How come noone told me? ObjectVision happened to be the only
"programming" environment I could even get a "Hello world" proggie
going.
Anybody got a spare?



Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            28-Oct-99 20:13:13
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 19:56:01
Subj: StarOffice 3.1 try and buy: how to get it working?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

I found a trial version of StarOffice 3.1 on my Warp 4 Sampler CD (I
never really looked at it before, since I got what I need, but I
chucked it in by mistake and had a look).

Does anyone know how to get this thing working properly? I sent a mail
to StarDivision, but they don't reply (probably don't remember they
ever made the thing).

Before calling me a weird luddite, let me tell you why I like it. It's
small, it's fast, and best of all, it doesn't have that ridiculous
StarDesktop taking over a perfectly working WPS setup. I know it's not
as stable as 5.1 and it lacks a lot of the features, but the
spreadsheet and drawing applications are quite nice, so I'd like to
give it a go... provided I can keep it working for more than 30 days.

Anyone?

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            28-Oct-99 20:13:10
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 19:56:01
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:51:45, Jim Stuyck <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:53:48, [e-mail] (Esther Schindler)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:59:28, "David T. Johnson"
> > > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > | So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
> > > | their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?
> > >
> > > * The folks who made VxREXX. (Can't think of the company name at the
> > > moment, but it's doing quite well.)
> > >
> > > * Computer Associates published several OS/2 apps in the 2.x days --
> > > and they're doing mighty fine without OS/2, too.
> > >
> > [snip]
> > One would be hard pressed to call CA an OS/2 ISV. I mean, the whole
> > PC-business is more like a hobby for those guys...
>
> Oh, they were pretty serious about OS/2 at one time.  I arranged for
> CA to make a product demonstration at a Dallas/Fort Worth OS/2 User's
> Group meeting.  They paid the postage for a bulk mailing to our
> membership (at that time, roughly 500-600 postcards), handed out
> freebies, and so on.  Of course, that was then, this is now.  ;-)
>
> Jim Stuyck
>
I didn't say they weren't any good. The OS/2 version of CA Realiser
was pretty nifty for its day. And wasn't there an OS/2 Textor as well?
I used to play a bit with the Windows 3.x version and found it more
than half capable for "them days".

It's just that for them OS/2 was - you know - "just another thing to
do". I wonder if it would ever have shown up in their sales figures.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 14:53:04
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 19:56:01
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Brad BARCLAY <[e-mail]>

Esther Schindler wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:59:28, "David T. Johnson"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> | So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
> | their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?
>
> * The folks who made VxREXX. (Can't think of the company name at the
> moment, but it's doing quite well.)

    VX-REXX was from Watcomm.  IIRC, they were bought out by another
company (WatComm was a startup created by a bunch of University of
Waterloo students here in Ontario.  The also used to write stuff for the
Unisys Icon series of computers used in many educational institutions).

    I've heard the Watcomm C/C++ compiler was recently dropped.  If this is
true, it's unfortunate - Watcomm used to do some really innovative
software (like VX-REXX :).

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]                            28-Oct-99 21:06:27
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 19:56:01
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

> > What is an MVP credit?
>
> If you read the John Dvorak column, he discusses "MVP Bucks."

So? That doesn't answer my question.

> > No not too many of them are. In fact I cannot name a single one besides
> > myself. Can you?
> >
> So tell us, Dale, where can we see the official list of MVPs?  Or is it
> confidential?

Why don't you answer the question. Why must you answer the question with
more questions? The reason, you guys are guessing. He stated it as if he
knew what he was talking about. If you are answering his questions for him,
then certainly you must know the answer.

Dale


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

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

From: [e-mail]                            28-Oct-99 21:02:24
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 19:56:01
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> > No need to split hairs. Apparently like most folks here you know little
to
> > nothing about the MVP program.
>
> Microsoft isn't actually broadcasting MVP info on the airwaves.  As John
> Dvorak points out in this column, even the MS website does not describe
> the program but it is, as he points out, very "spooky."  We have no way
> of knowing what Microsoft considers to be "support" as opposed to
> "advocacy."

No but everyone can assume and speak as if they are an authority on the
subject...

> There is no way to know WHO is in the MVP program,

It is very easy to know WHO is in the MVP program. Go to the
microsoft.public.* newsgroups. MVPs are very easy to spot.

> what they do
> to get "MVP bucks," and how many MVP Bucks they get for it.  Only
> Microsoft knows this.  But it looks pretty clear that MVP participants
> are paid to do whatever it is they do.


>
> >
> > > > That means that every
> > > > user I helped in comp.os.ms-windows.nt.*, the BBS world etc. did not
> > count
> > > > towards the MVP program. And Microsoft has never supported/suggested
> > posting
> > > > by an MVP in the *.advocacy hierarchy of groups.
> > >
> > > By count in the MVP program you mean count for in MVP credits ?
> >
> > What is an MVP credit?
>
> If you read the John Dvorak column, he discusses "MVP Bucks."
>
> >
> > > > And the names I've seen thrown out as Microsoft MVPs in this
thread...
> > > > Unless they have another name, they do not show up in the Microsoft
MVP
> > > > roster. I've never heard of them, I've never seen any of their
posts.
> > > > Perhaps the knowledgeable folks here could tell us which products
they
> > are
> > > > an MVP for.
> > >
> > > One would say some of the folks who frequented the OS/2 newsgroups
when MS
> > was
> > > shipping NT vaporware and the crippled NT 3.1 are now in the MVP
program.
> >
> > No not too many of them are. In fact I cannot name a single one besides
> > myself. Can you?
> >
> So tell us, Dale, where can we see the official list of MVPs?  Or is it
> confidential?


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 17:13:16
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 19:56:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Just how many times do I need to tell you that before it sinks in,
> Lucien?

How ironic.

> Your reading comprehension problem constitutes proof that you
> don't even know what my statements are, thus your conclusion is
> invalid.

Doubly so.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]               28-Oct-99 14:30:05
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 19:56:01
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On 28 Oct 1999 20:13:25 GMT, Karel Jansens wrote:

>What?
>There was an OS/2 version of ObjectVision?
>How come noone told me? ObjectVision happened to be the only
>"programming" environment I could even get a "Hello world" proggie
>going.
>Anybody got a spare?

Are you serious?

ObjectVison was very innovative in its days but others have long passed it.

I ordered the OS/2 version and they actually sent me both Win3.1 and OS/2.
Nice concept but poorly written - both version were slow as heck.



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

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

From: [e-mail]               28-Oct-99 14:28:10
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 19:56:01
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:53:09 -0400, Brad BARCLAY wrote:

>    VX-REXX was from Watcomm.  IIRC, they were bought out by another
>company (WatComm was a startup created by a bunch of University of
>Waterloo students here in Ontario.  The also used to write stuff for the
>Unisys Icon series of computers used in many educational institutions).

You know any of them?   I am dying to talk to somebody and see if anybody
would be willing to write another one.

VX-REXX remains one of THE best RAD on any of the platforms I've used.   I
offered to buy it from them and they didn't respond.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                             28-Oct-99 14:38:13
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 19:56:01
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Dale Ross wrote:
>
>
> It is very easy to know WHO is in the MVP program. Go to the
> microsoft.public.* newsgroups. MVPs are very easy to spot.

Are you suggesting that these so-called easy-to-spot MVPs are the ONLY
MVPs?  So tell us, Dale, where can we see the official list of MVPs?  Or
is it confidential?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                      28-Oct-99 21:37:18
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 19:56:01
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])

Brad BARCLAY? ([e-mail]?) wrote (Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:53:09 -0400):
>    I've heard the Watcomm C/C++ compiler was recently dropped.  If this is

And their Fortran, and their other dev tools.  Might be that Watcom left
one.  The rest are gone as of Sunday, 23:59:59, officially, worldwide.
Watcom has been officually gone in North America since the end of August.

In 1994 you couldn't get a better C compiler (and DOS,DOS32,OS216,Win16,
OS32,Win32 all on one CD).  Unfortunately, it was sold to PowerSoft, then
Sybase, now, the dumpster out back.  Rumor is that Sybase will public
domain it, or at least open-source it.  Wishful thinking.

 '`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
 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: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 17:59:20
  To: All                                               28-Oct-99 19:56:01
Subj: Re: Giga says Win2k worth the money

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Illya Vaes wrote:
>
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> >Microsoft designed Windows 2000 from the ground up [...]
>
> Ah, the Windows 95 approach.
> That tells any critical reader enough, methinks.

How could the Win95 approach be "from the ground up"?  Unless you count
DOS as the "ground", that is.

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            28-Oct-99 22:22:13
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:17
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
>
>
> Dale Ross wrote:
> >
> >
> > It is very easy to know WHO is in the MVP program. Go to the
> > microsoft.public.* newsgroups. MVPs are very easy to spot.
>
> Are you suggesting that these so-called easy-to-spot MVPs are the ONLY
> MVPs?

Yes I am suggesting that these easy to spot Microsft MVPs are the only MVPs.

> So tell us, Dale, where can we see the official list of MVPs?  Or
> is it confidential?

There is no list that you can go view.

If you want to compile a list, why not got to deja.com, use the keywords,
Microsoft and MVP and pull the names that come from the microsoft.public.*
groups. You can spot an MVP one of two ways, some place it in their From
Line, and you will find it in their .sig.

You can also find some MVPs at http://www.mvps.org Many have their Web sites
listed there.

Dale


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 18:35:20
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:17
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> That one I don't remember. I quite liked CA Textor (the Windows
> version) and I played a bit with Realiser (the OS/2 version), the
> latter one until I realised that programming and I go together like...
> like... - like two things that don't go together well.

Like Tholen and common sense?  ;-)

- Marty

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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            28-Oct-99 22:22:06
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:17
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:30:11, "Kim Cheung"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 28 Oct 1999 20:13:25 GMT, Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> >What?
> >There was an OS/2 version of ObjectVision?
> >How come noone told me? ObjectVision happened to be the only
> >"programming" environment I could even get a "Hello world" proggie
> >going.
> >Anybody got a spare?
>
> Are you serious?
>
> ObjectVison was very innovative in its days but others have long passed it.
>
> I ordered the OS/2 version and they actually sent me both Win3.1 and OS/2.
> Nice concept but poorly written - both version were slow as heck.
>
I know how it works and I could get things done with it. That is
really all that matters to me.

The speed issue was never really a problem related to the kind of
things I wanted to do with it (database-related, heavily
input-oriented, no graphics stuff).

I had a project planner and invoice program running - well crawling. I
know one thing: I never got it as smoothly with Approach.

ObjectVision was *great* for people who wanted to automate stuff for
themselves, but didn't care about distributing the apps.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            28-Oct-99 22:53:07
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:17
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> > So? That doesn't answer my question.
>
> Well, here's what John Dvorak said:
>
> "The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many
> of these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks.
> The concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP
> home page seems to be discounts of some sort."

I know what Dvorak said. I am asking about a "Credit" which is apparently
something different.

> That is all of the information we and John Dvorak have.  Do you have
> more?

Do you know what a company store is? Most corporations that manufacturer
goods for consumers have them. All MVPs get the same amount of "MVP Bucks".
You get these "MVP Bucks" when you become an MVP.

These "MVP Bucks" are then applied towards a purchase in the Microsoft
company store. You cannot use an "MVP buck" to pay your rent, you cannot use
it to buy food. You can pick up a book, or a copy of software or a new
mouse. If Microsoft makes it you will probably find it in the company store.

> > Why don't you answer the question. Why must you answer the question with
> > more questions? The reason, you guys are guessing. He stated it as if he
> > knew what he was talking about. If you are answering his questions for
him,
> > then certainly you must know the answer.
> >
> I am not answering a question here, I am asking one.  If I knew the
> answer, I would not ask it.  Do you know the answer?  And who are you
> referring to with 'He stated it as if he knew what he was talking
> about'?  Who is the 'he' here?

Who? Joseph. Take a look at the thread above you. Do I know the answer? I've
already given my answer, but I'll give it again for you. I know of no other
current or past MVP that has posted here in cooa other than yours truly.
I've seen a few names thrown about in this and another thread. However no
one was correct in naming a single MVP that has posted here until Joseph
mentioned my name.

People come here and the Windows advocacy groups to argue about their choice
of OS. Debating these kinds of issues simply isn't in the game plan for an
MVP. An MVP works the microsoft.public.* groups and that is it. Anything
outside of those groups is not recognized by Microsoft. Outside of those
groups they are on their own.

And yes you will find MVPs outside the microsoft.public groups. You will
find them in places like comp.os.ms-windows.misc for example. Microsoft MVPs
help users with problems using Microsoft software. That's what we do. There
is nothing more.

Dale


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

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

From: [e-mail]                          28-Oct-99 23:10:01
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:17
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>[e-mail]
>SPG is a great example, IMO. In OS/2, they were *the* graphics
>application. If you wanted a good OS/2 photo-editing program, you
>bought ColorWorks.

And obviously, so few OS/2 users actually bought "the" graphics
program for OS/2 that SPG had to look for sales in another market in
order to survive.

And that's "the" graphics program for OS/2. I pity the people who were
making more esoteric, vertical market stuff for OS/2, or who were
trying to offer a competing product to SPG.

And *that* is the story across the board with OS/2. OS/2 users aren't
worth crap when it comes to supporting ISV's. Who would want them for
customers when history has shown that they don't/can't even support
"the"  products for OS/2?

The answer: No one.

And that's exactly what has happened today.

>one could speculate that if many of the OS/2 ISVs who left for the
>Windows market had stayed that OS/2's history could have been different.

Here's a better speculation. Maybe if some of useless OS/2 endusers
who log onto internet newsgroups and complain about ISV's, instead
picked up a development system and taught their lazy, incompetent
asses how to help themselves, they could write the software that they
need.

Brad Wardell did it. The guy who founded SPG did it. Linux folks do
it. Be folks do it. What's *your* excuse?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             28-Oct-99 16:06:05
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:17
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Kim Cheung wrote:
>
> On 28 Oct 1999 20:13:25 GMT, Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> >What?
> >There was an OS/2 version of ObjectVision?
> >How come noone told me? ObjectVision happened to be the only
> >"programming" environment I could even get a "Hello world" proggie
> >going.
> >Anybody got a spare?
>
> Are you serious?
>
> ObjectVison was very innovative in its days but others have long passed it.
>
> I ordered the OS/2 version and they actually sent me both Win3.1 and OS/2.
> Nice concept but poorly written - both version were slow as heck.

Well, I have v2.0 published by Borland in 1992.  I still use it for some
stuff related to my business and don't want to sell it but there MUST be
other copies out there.  Maybe it was a little slow on 386s but I don't
recall this.  I don't have access to 386s or even 486s anymore but
frankly, EVERYTHING that used a GUI was slow on those older machines,
including Windows 3.1.  We forget how much the video technology, huge
RAM, and hard drive speeds have improved since then.  ObjectVision v2.0
runs very well on OS/2 v4 with current hardware and is a 32-bit OS/2 PM
application.  Considering how well it works in 1999, 7 YEARS AFTER IT
WAS PUBLISHED, I would say it was quite well written.  And yes, it
is/was a very nice concept.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 17:23:01
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:17
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

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

It's obvious that what I'm about to say has probably been said by many
others already since not all OS/2 users are fanatical and stupid.

IBM is such a company that you are describing.

David T. Johnson <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> Can anyone think of an ISV that formerly developed and sold a
> substantial OS/2 product and then stopped selling it "cold turkey" in
> favor a Windows version?  You know the story:  OS/2 is a dying
> platform.  There are hardly any OS/2 users.  The OS/2 marketplace is
> dead.  There are hundreds of millions of Windows users who throw money
> at software like sailors do at naked women.  Etc.  Etc.  So what has
> happened to these OS/2 ISVs?
>
> Microrim used to sell a product called R:base for OS/2.  Now, Microrim
> seems to be gone.  There is a small company called Rbase Technologies
> that seems to still sell R:base but they do not appear to be very
> prosperous.
>
> SPG used to sell a program called Colorworks for OS/2.  They stopped
> with the OS/2 product and moved to Windows with a critically-acclaimed
> "Colorworks:Web3."  Now, they sell "Colorworks:Web4" and advertise their
> contract programming services on their web site.  It doesn't look like
> there will be an IPO anytime soon.
>
> Borland was a large software company that sold development tools for
> OS/2 including a C++ compiler and application builders like
> ObjectVision.  Now they are smaller-sized company called Borland/Inprise
> and their biggest product seems to be a Java enterprise development tool
> called Jbuilder.  They look to be doing OK but not exactly setting the
> world on fire.
>
> So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
> their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 17:33:06
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:17
Subj: Re: Win2k & OS/2

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

Those are very good points.  I wish I had thought of them!  :-)  Of course,
I wasn't with OS/2 until just before v3 came out and had nothing to do with
its previous history...

And, this is doubly important (which I have said often enough before), if
IBM is showing the world they are making Win-NT only apps or making very bad
OS/2 ports of those apps, it shows the world they don't care about OS/2
(hence your second point.).  So why OS/2 users whine and bitch about not
getting apps is beyond me, especially since the source of the no-apps
phenomenon is bloody well obvious:  I'll spell it out.  I - B - M.  IBM is
why OS/2 has few apps (are any of which are good or at least up to date?)

Most people who are single remain that way because they feel worthless or
whatever.  I don't know if IBM could learn more from single people, or
vice-versa, but both do have that in common:  both don't get anywhere
because they think their stuff is inferior.  (I can't blame IBM, upon
reminiscing OS/2 really is not very good but I do feel sorry for the single
people...)

> You must be new to the game.  IBM made really, really big noises about
OS/2
> 1.0, 2.0, and PPC.  None of them shipped anywhere near on time.  The PPC
> product, hyped endlessly in the trade press, was thoroughly stillborn.
Warp
> was the only OS/2 release that could be said to have gone smoothly and
that
> was really just a layering on of more stuff on the basic existing package
(ie
> it was a major version in a marketing sense, not a technical one).
>
> >         Another thing is that Microsoft treats their products like it is
> > the greatest thing since slice bread, even if it ends up being the
> > biggest piece of crap ever produced.  Sort of a blind evangelistic
> > approach that *all* of Microsoft believes in.
>
> This is good marketing.  You have a hard time selling stuff when you're
not
> positive about it.  It's up to competitors to punch holes in your story
and
> you'll notice that some Microsoft competitors like Oracle and Sun have
done a
> pretty good job at that.
>
> jim frost
> [e-mail]


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 17:28:15
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:17
Subj: Re: Win2k & OS/2

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

October 1996 "OS/2 Magazinre" perspectives article.

John W Thompson went on and on as to why OS/2 v4 was released without proper
testing and doing a second beta:  some bullshit about a product being
visible on a market.

If Johnnie boy and company opted to keep OS/2 v4 under reigns until they
fixed all the bugs, the OS/2 fanatical dingdongs would immediately cheer
about how great IBM is for trying to properly release an operating system.

I can't believe how many hypocrites exist out there.

Oh, and anyone depending on Win2000 is a dipshit.  Ain't nothing out there
yet for the OS!!!  It may have new features, but come on!  Businesses are
surviving right now and businesses (the good ones at least) tend to wait for
a product review before buying it.

IBM is the real loser since they didn't put out a reasonable product (the
beta had NUMEROUS upon NUMEROUS bugs and I gave up in pure disgust after
finding the 50th bug - which was on the second day or accumulative 4th hour
of using it.   And what was released wasn't much better in some areas and
those areas were openly abandoned by IBM, they said so in a 2/1998 speech.)
And I still haven't gotten to the system input queue atrocity yet!

John Hong <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:7v7uuv$hdf$[e-mail]...
> It's pretty amazing the difference how Microsoft and IBM go about
> treating their products, really.  With Microsoft, we are seeing delay and
> delay on their new Windows 2000, I just saw it today on a news broadcast
> that it won't be ready until Feburary of next year.  Man, that'd have to
> suck for anyone who has been really wanting to depend on that.
> Especially since it was only earlier this year that they were saying that
> they would have it out before the end of this year.
> With IBM, it's a different thing altogether.  They don't make any
> noise whatsoever about OS/2.  They're like a *REALLY* *REALLY* *BIG*
> mouse.  I suppose it might be better since this way they don't make
> promises they can not keep in promoting a upcoming product or anything,
> but it does sort of stink since it gives the impression to the world that
> they don't care about it anymore which is simply not the case.
> Another thing is that Microsoft treats their products like it is
> the greatest thing since slice bread, even if it ends up being the
> biggest piece of crap ever produced.  Sort of a blind evangelistic
> approach that *all* of Microsoft believes in.


<bollocks about IBM giving a damn for OS/2 which is why they are keeping it
niche happily removed>


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

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

From: [e-mail]                             28-Oct-99 16:47:02
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:17
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Dale Ross wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> >
> >
> > Dale Ross wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It is very easy to know WHO is in the MVP program. Go to the
> > > microsoft.public.* newsgroups. MVPs are very easy to spot.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that these so-called easy-to-spot MVPs are the ONLY
> > MVPs?
>
> Yes I am suggesting that these easy to spot Microsft MVPs are the only MVPs.

Do you have any basis for this?  HOW do you know?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         28-Oct-99 23:49:28
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:17
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Like Tholen and common sense?  ;-)

Typical invective, and even more evidence that you're playing an
"infantile game", Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            29-Oct-99 00:00:06
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:17
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> > > Are you suggesting that these so-called easy-to-spot MVPs are the ONLY
> > > MVPs?
> >
> > Yes I am suggesting that these easy to spot Microsft MVPs are the only
MVPs.
>
> Do you have any basis for this?  HOW do you know?

Because I know what the Microsoft MVP program is all about. A Microsoft MVP
is only recognized for work in the Microsoft public groups. I've told you
this already.

It is possible that you _MIGHT_ find a straggler or two on MSN. However
Microsoft has said they must move to the public newsgroups.

Dale


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               29-Oct-99 00:33:11
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: McCoy Digest

From: Curtis Bass <[e-mail]>

Jeff Glatt wrote:

-- snip --


> Ultimately, I think that OS/2 advocates have done about as "effective"
> a job of promoting their pet product as Amiga True Believers did,
> which is not surprising being that both pursued the same tactics and
> made the same mistakes.
>
> As Kurt Vonnegut would say.. "And so it goes"

Hmm? I thought that was Linda Ellerbee (sp?).


Curtis


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

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

From: [e-mail]                           29-Oct-99 01:04:26
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: [e-mail] (John Varela)

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:53:15, "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Do you know what a company store is?

Yes.  Do you?  Do you know the old Tennessee Ernie Ford song, "I owe
my soul to the company store..."  It was a hit in 1955.

--
John Varela
to e-mail, remove - between mind and spring

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         29-Oct-99 01:04:16
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

I see you've deleted not only the evidence for your lie, but also the
entire discussion surrounding it.  Too embarassed, Mike?  I've
reinserted the evidence below.

>>>>>>> I looked at several files, including classes.zip.

>>>>>> Where did you find this file, Mike?

>>>>> In the JDK, you moron.  You asked for the name of the file in the JDK
>>>>> that contains the information, so I gave you the name of a file in the
>>>>> JDK.

>>>> I donwloaded the JDK months ago, Mike.     <<<<<----------<<<<<
>>>> There is no file named "classes.zip"
>>>> among the files available for download.
>>>> Try again.

>>> Dave, I didn't say you could download classes.zip separately,

>> In which case your answer doesn't do any good, Mike.

> On the contrary, I assumed that you had enough intelligence to navigate
> IBM's web site and download the JDK.

Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone without a logical
argument.  Also quite untrue, given that I downloaded the JDK months ago.
Of course, I had already told you that a few lines up (see the arrowed
text), so the fact that you think I couldn't do it represents even more
evidence for your reading comprehension problem, Mike.

> Obviously, the challenge is too great for you.

Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone without a logical
argument.  Also quite untrue, given that I downloaded the JDK months ago.
Of course, I had already told you that a few lines up (see the arrowed
text), so the fact that you think I couldn't do it represents even more
evidence for your reading comprehension problem, Mike.

And it doesn't change the fact that your answer doesn't do any good,
because you didn't provide enough information for the casual reader to
check your claims.

>> Which file did you
>> download that contains classes.zip?  In other words, take the position of
>> the casual reader who wishes to verify your claims.  They can't find any
>> separate classes.zip file, so which file should they download, Mike?

> As I've said many times, it's in the JDK.

You've not "said many times" which top-level file it's in, Mike.

> I assume that the casual reader is intelligent enough to be able to
> find IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 on IBM's web site and download it.

And in which of the top-level files will the casual reader find the
classes.zip file, Mike?

> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.

Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
let's take a closer look at that file.  Here's the output from the
LIST program in hexadecimal mode.  Notice the corresponding filename
in the first line (you can also tell when I downloaded it):

] LIST       1   00%        08/10/99 23:06  JAVAINUF.EXE
] 000000  4D 5A 50 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 0F 00 FF FF 00 00  MZP      áá
] 000010  B8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 1A 00 00 00 00 00  ⌐       @
] 000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
] 000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00               

] 000040  BA 10 00 0E 1F B4 09 CD 21 B8 01 4C CD 21 90 90  Ç ù ü!⌐
Lü!╔╔
] 000050  54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73  This program mus
] 000060  74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F  t be run under O
] 000070  53 2F 32 2E 0D 0A 24 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  S/2.

(I did replace one tab character with a space to preserve the alignment
of the columns on the right side.)

Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite clearly,
the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

Yet Mike also clearly wrote:

  ] Message-ID: <7umhkp$qg6$[e-mail]>
  ]
MT] >> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.
  ] >
DT] >Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
  ]
MT] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.

Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
on an OS/2 system to boot!  So, I must again ask the question:

Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

>>> I said that the file is *IN THE JDK*.

>> In which file, Mike?  Which top-level file did you download that contains
>> classes.zip?  Why do you continue to avoid answering the question?

> I'm not avoiding the question at all -- you just keep changing the
> questions you're asking,

Incorrect, Mike.  You just kept answering the wrong question.

> because you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

On the contrary, I know exactly what I'm talking about.  See above
for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.

>>> If you really downloaded (and installed) the JDK, then the file is
>>> already on your system.

>> Irrelevant, Mike.  I want to know where *you* saw the contents.

> And I told you -- it's part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2.  Duh.

And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.

Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
running OS/2.  That's a keeper.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: [e-mail]
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$[e-mail]>
]
] 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.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$[e-mail]>
]
] In article <[e-mail]>, Joseph  <[e-mail]> 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.
]
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
]
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <[e-mail]>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
]
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
]
] > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
]
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on.
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
]
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
]
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
]
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                            28-Oct-99 22:04:28
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

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

In article <7v8gdb$2a0$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>  David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Borland was never an OS/2 company and SPG decide to bail on OS/2 and
>> live, which they are doing, than stay with OS/2 and go broke.
>
>But his point was that SPG, and others, supposedly left OS/2 to make
>big honk'n bucks in the windows market. And that it sure doesn't look
>like they've accomplished this. (Are they living well? I don't know.)

They left because they were going broke selling OS/2 software. Each and every
company that has bothered to post cited financial reasons for leaving OS/2.

>SPG is a great example, IMO. In OS/2, they were *the* graphics
>application. If you wanted a good OS/2 photo-editing program, you
>bought ColorWorks. In Windows-land, however, they're just another damn
>PhotoShop clone.

And yet they are still surviving. Recently Dan Porter said that their Web-
filter software has over 200 competitors, yet they still make more money in
Windows than OS/2.

>While it's totally un-provable, and completely baseless (so don't get
>all worked up about it), one could speculate that if many of the OS/2
>ISVs who left for the Windows market had stayed that OS/2's history
>could have been different.

They left because they couldn't survive writing for OS/2. Heck, almost no one
here now in c.o.o.a codes for OS/2 for a living.

>--
>-Steven Hunter               *OS/2 Warp 4 * |
>[e-mail] *AMD K6-2 400* |
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            28-Oct-99 22:07:14
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

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

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>>
>> Marty wrote:
>> >
>> > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
>> > > their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?
>> >
>> > How about IBM?  :-)
>>
>> Well, yes, I see your point but they haven't dumped their OS/2
>> products.
>
>Not all of them, but a few for sure.
>
>> I am referring to companies that do not sell anything for
>> OS/2 but used to.
>
>I take it Stardock is then excluded from this category.  How about
>PowerQuest?
>
>> There is certainly no question that the Windows
>> installed base is huge relative to the OS/2 base and I certainly would
>> have thought that companies that had good OS/2 products would have been
>> able to successfully market similarly-good products in the Windows
>> world, also.  But...as I say, none are coming to mind.  I thought of
>> Powerquest with their Partition Magic software but they have not really
>> dumped OS/2 since their v4 product still supports HPFS volumes and runs
>> as a DOS executable under OS/2.  But they might be debatable.  Any
>> others?
>
>Oops.  I should read on before I write next time.  ;-)
>
>Their product is not technically "for OS/2", but it works "with OS/2".
>Technically, Win95 "works with" OS/2.  But they have given OS/2 users
>some ability to use their latest products, thankfully.
>
>I just found it amusing how their product's footprint went from about
>2.5MB when they had DOS and OS/2 executables, to a whopping 100MB or so
>when they went the Win9x path.  I'm sure it looks really pretty, but
>that's not an extra 97.5MB of filesystem support.  ;-)
>
>- Marty
>

Please. I've used Partition Magic from 1 to 4 and no version takes up 100
megs.
At best,  you may be counting things like the MagicMover or BootMagic, but
please stop trying to imply that the Windows version takes up such resources
and offers nothing in return.

Such deception should be beneath you.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         29-Oct-99 00:17:19
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Can anyone believe this shit?

You're trying to get people to believe your "shit", Marty.

>>>>>>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.

>>>>>> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example of
>>>>>> a "lie/game" on my part.

>>>>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.

>>>> Illogically,

>>> Are you still too blind to see it?

>> There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
>> halluncinating?

> Are you still too blind to see it?

There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
halluncinating?

> Answer: Yes.

Illogical, given that there's no reference to any misspelling to see,
Marty.  Are you halluncinating?

>>> I used the word "blatant".

>> You also used the word "following", Marty.  You also used the word
>> "another", Marty.  You also used "lie/game".

> Irrelevant, jackass.

On the contrary, they are just as relevant as the fact that you used
"blatant", Marty.

> Perhaps if you didn't cut the sentence there and read on, you might
> understand,

I didn't cut any sentence, Marty.  Note how the the quotation ends
with a period.

> though in light of your argument below, I don't find that incredibly
> likely.

I already understand perfectly, Marty.

>>> I would have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past)
>>> if Mike had not corrected me.

>> Illogical, given that I called your attention to your misspelling
>> of "hypocrisy" and you still got it wrong after that.

> So therefore I would always do the same, no matter who corrects me?

I didn't say that, Marty.  I said that it is illogical for you to
claim that you would have spelled it wrong if Mike had not corrected
you.

> Not only illogical, but moronic Dave.

Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
logical argument.

> I said I would have spelled it wrong if he had not corrected me.

And I said that that is illogical, given your history of still
spelling words wrong after being told of your incorrect spelling.

> He had corrected me and I have henceforth spelled it correctly.

I told you that there is no such word as "hypocracy", and you have
henceforth still gotten it wrong.

> I don't expect you to understand.

I don't expect you to understand that you made no reference to any
misspelling in the relevant quotation.  You merely extended a thanks
for some unspecified reason.

>>> I thanked him after using the correct spelling.

>> There's no reference to any misspelling, Marty.

> That's because I spelled it correctly this time.

Then you agree that you didn't make any reference to a misspelling.
Yet you wrote:

M] Are you still too blind to see it?

Do make up your mind, Marty.

> The "reference" was the correctly spelled word.

In reality, there is no reference at all, Marty.  You merely extended
a thanks for some unspecified (that is, unreferenced) reason.

>>> Get over it, moron.

>> Typical invective, coming from someone without a logical argument.
>> No surprise there.

> No need for logic in this argument.

Is that why you're not using any, Marty?

> The facts are obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of a 3 toed
> sloth.

Then you must not have "an IQ above that of a 3 toed sloth", Marty.

>>> A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.

>> A two-year-old also won't see any reference to a misspelling, Marty.

> A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now,

What "concept" are you referring to, Marty?

> but Dave cannot.

On the contrary, I grasped the concept long ago that you extended a
thanks for some unspecified reason.

>>>>>> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
>>>>>> find embarassing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
>>>>>> M] Dave's part.

>>>>> While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
>>>>> question?

>>>> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?

>>> The one which led me to question your reading comprehension facilities.

>> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of an "idiotically
>> inappropriate" question, Marty.  What led you to question my reading
>> comprehension facilities is your continuing "infantile game".

> Speaking of infantile games, are you this stupid

Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
logical argument.

> or is this more proof of your own?

You're erroneously presupposing the existence of some "infantile game"
on my part, Marty.  If I wanted to play some "infantile game" with you,
I could have responded to any number of your postings while I was
allegedly in your killfile.  I did not.  Rather, you chose to respond
to me, despite me allegedly being in your killfile, and it wasn't to
discuss any real issue (how ironic, given your false accusation that
I never discuss issues), but rather to comment on the quotation from
Mr. "134 articles a day" (I'd use his name, but that could trigger
another round, given that he keys on his name).

>>>>> Here you go:

>>>>>>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

>>>> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
>>>> Marty?

>>> Nothing,

>> Then why did you call it "idiotically inappropriate", Marty?

> I didn't, jackass.

Incorrect, Marty:

M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
M] question?  Here you go:
M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

>>> which is why I wasn't referring to it.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> Perhaps you were so eager to answer that you forgot to read the rest of
> the sentence.

Incorrect, Marty.  I read the rest of your sentence and found it to be
yet another one of your lies, given that you were referring to it:

M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
M] question?  Here you go:
M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

>> Incorrect, Marty.  Here's the relevant excerpt from your posting:

> Now you are telling me what I was referring to,

I'm telling you what you wrote, Marty.

> after repeated corrections on my part.

You wrote what you wrote, Marty.  Don't blame me if you need to correct
your writings.

> How moronic.

Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
logical argument.

>> M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
>> M] question?  Here you go:
>> M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

Note:  no response.  Embarassed by the evidence, Marty?

>>>>>>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.

>>>>>>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game" any
>>>>>>>> better than you, Marty?

>>> The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.

>> Incorrect, given that you "Here you go" precedes a different question,
>> Marty.

> Now you are telling me what I was referring to,

I'm telling you what you wrote, Marty.

> after repeated corrections on my part.

You wrote what you wrote, Marty.  Don't blame me if you need to correct
your writings.

> How moronic.

Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
logical argument.

> I was referring to the above question,

Incorrect, given that you were referring to the question that immediately
followed your "Here you go:", Marty:

M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
M] question?  Here you go:
M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

> which led me to question your reading comprehension facilities below.

Erroneously and illogically, Marty.

> The "Here you go" stuff in the beginning was to provide context,

And an indication of the relevant question, which you reproduced on
the next line:

M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
M] question?  Here you go:
M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

> but I don't expect you to understand that concept.

On the contrary, I grasped the concept long ago that you were referring
to the question that followed your "Here you go:", Marty.

>>> Hence my commentary below.

>> Not hence your introductory "Here you go", Marty.

> The "Here you go" stuff in the beginning was to provide context,

And an indication of the relevant question, which you reproduced on
the next line:

M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
M] question?  Here you go:
M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

> but I don't expect you to understand that concept.

On the contrary, I grasped the concept long ago that you were referring
to the question that followed your "Here you go:", Marty.

>>> Don't bother to admit your mistake.

>> You're erroneously presupposing an error on my part, Marty.

> Don't bother to admit your mistake.

You're erroneously presupposing a mistake on my part, Marty.

> It's even more painfully obvious by now anyway.

Painful to you, Marty.

>>>>>>> Reading comprehension problems?

>>>>> Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.

>>>> What alleged embarassment, Marty?

>>> Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.

>> Note the lack of admission, Marty.

> Note the lack of intelligence.

On your part, Marty.

> The rest of us have.

Trying to speak for what the "rest of us" have noticed about you, Marty?

By the way, I noticed that you still haven't answered my question about
whether the implementation of Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for
OS/2 is an issue.  Why is that?  Too embarassing for you to admit that
I have, in fact, discussed issues, contrary to your ridiculous claim?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                     29-Oct-99 00:20:22
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

Marty writes:

>> Just how many times do I need to tell you that before it sinks in,
>> Lucien?

> How ironic.

What's allegedly ironic about my statement, Marty?

>> Your reading comprehension problem constitutes proof that you
>> don't even know what my statements are, thus your conclusion is
>> invalid.

> Doubly so.

For you, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         29-Oct-99 00:25:11
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>> Play on, Dave.

>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
>>>> the one playing the "infantile game".

>>> Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.

>> I've done more than just say so, Marty.

> Yes.

Glad you agree, Marty.

> I suppose you might actually believe it too.

I have presented the evidence, Marty.

> That still doesn't make it any more true.

The truth can't be any more true than true, Marty.

>> I've reproduced evidence that supports the claim.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of pontification.  I responded to yet another
example earlier today.

>>> You know better than that Dave.

>> Fortunately, I've done more than just say it.

> Yes,

Glad you agree, Marty.

> but your beliefs are irrelevant to others.

The "more" I've done isn't related to "beliefs", Marty.  I've provided
evidence, which is relevant to others.

>>> Or perhaps you don't.

>> Perhaps not.

> Glad you agree.

That's not a statement of agreement, Marty.  Having more reading
comprehension problems?

>>> Keep on playing.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
>> the one playing the "infantile game".

> Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.

The evidence does make it so, Marty.

> You know better than that Dave.

Which is why I've been reproducing evidence rather than just saying so,
Marty.

> Or perhaps you don't.

Perhaps not, Marty.  And that also isn't a statement of agreement.

> Keep on playing.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
the one playing the "infantile game".

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             28-Oct-99 17:36:08
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Dale Ross wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > > So? That doesn't answer my question.
> >
> > Well, here's what John Dvorak said:
> >
> > "The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many
> > of these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks.
> > The concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP
> > home page seems to be discounts of some sort."
>
> I know what Dvorak said. I am asking about a "Credit" which is apparently
> something different.

Why would you think there is a difference between an "MVP Credit" and an
"MVP Buck."  They sound like the same type of thing to me.

>
> > That is all of the information we and John Dvorak have.  Do you have
> > more?
>
> Do you know what a company store is? Most corporations that manufacturer
> goods for consumers have them. All MVPs get the same amount of "MVP Bucks".
> You get these "MVP Bucks" when you become an MVP.
>
> These "MVP Bucks" are then applied towards a purchase in the Microsoft
> company store. You cannot use an "MVP buck" to pay your rent, you cannot use
> it to buy food. You can pick up a book, or a copy of software or a new
> mouse. If Microsoft makes it you will probably find it in the company store.

Well, Microsoft has an employee store in Redmond.  Are the MVP Bucks
good there?  What about the new Microsoft store in San Francisco?  And
an MVP Buck sounds like an MVP Credit to me in this context.

>
> > > Why don't you answer the question. Why must you answer the question with
> > > more questions? The reason, you guys are guessing. He stated it as if he
> > > knew what he was talking about. If you are answering his questions for
> him,
> > > then certainly you must know the answer.
> > >
> > I am not answering a question here, I am asking one.  If I knew the
> > answer, I would not ask it.  Do you know the answer?  And who are you
> > referring to with 'He stated it as if he knew what he was talking
> > about'?  Who is the 'he' here?
>
> Who? Joseph. Take a look at the thread above you. Do I know the answer? I've
> already given my answer, but I'll give it again for you. I know of no other
> current or past MVP that has posted here in cooa other than yours truly.
> I've seen a few names thrown about in this and another thread. However no
> one was correct in naming a single MVP that has posted here until Joseph
> mentioned my name.

You have stated in an earlier post that there is no list of MVPs that I
can go view and you invited me to compile a list from the
microsoft.public newsgroups.  So if you don't know of a list of MVPs,
how would you possibly know that names thrown around here are NOT also
MVPs?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         29-Oct-99 00:38:08
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>> 1) My thesis was that the "costly mistakes" and "implements
>>> functionality" situations are ambiguous WRT quantification in the
>>> absence of peri-verbal information.

>> Your thesis is wrong,

> On the contrary, my thesis is correct.

Balderdash, Lucien, as I clearly explained in the remainder of my
statement, which you chose to delete.

> See the "costly mistakes" thread for the proof.

There is no proof for your claim in that thread, Lucien.

>>> Your statement about the "implements" sentence:
>>>
>>> [dt]"The word 'implements' does allow for [[[[either 'some' or
>>> [dt]'all']]]] functionality, [[[[in the absence of any other
>>> [dt]information.]]]]"
>>>
>>> is congruent with my thesis statement.

>> But it doesn't apply to the present situation, given that we have
>> presence of additional information.

> But it is still congruent with my thesis statement (taken directly from
> the "costly mistakes" thread).

Your thesis statement is irrelevant, given that it doesn't apply to
the present situation, Lucien.

> Besides, even if your assertion were true,

My assertion is true, Lucien.

> the semantic result of the additional info would only prove again the
> correctness of my thesis and not yours.

Your thesis statement is irrelevant, given that it doesn't apply to
the present situation, Lucien.

> Sorry, your witless statements put you in direct agreement with me.

Incorrect, Lucien.  My statements deal with the present situation,
while yours do not.

> Review the "costly mistakes" thread for the proof.

There is no proof for your claim in that thread, Lucien.

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.
]
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.
]
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day?
]
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.
]
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

#3:  It did rain today.

#4:  It didn't rain today.

The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?

Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
to be answered unambigiously.

Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".
Or are you really that idiotic?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            29-Oct-99 02:13:00
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

> > I know what Dvorak said. I am asking about a "Credit" which is
apparently
> > something different.
>
> Why would you think there is a difference between an "MVP Credit" and an
> "MVP Buck."  They sound like the same type of thing to me.

Because of the context of the question. It was asked as if you could earn
credits any time.

> > These "MVP Bucks" are then applied towards a purchase in the Microsoft
> > company store. You cannot use an "MVP buck" to pay your rent, you cannot
use
> > it to buy food. You can pick up a book, or a copy of software or a new
> > mouse. If Microsoft makes it you will probably find it in the company
store.
>
> Well, Microsoft has an employee store in Redmond.  Are the MVP Bucks
> good there?  What about the new Microsoft store in San Francisco?  And
> an MVP Buck sounds like an MVP Credit to me in this context.

As far as I know Redmond only

> > Who? Joseph. Take a look at the thread above you. Do I know the answer?
I've
> > already given my answer, but I'll give it again for you. I know of no
other
> > current or past MVP that has posted here in cooa other than yours truly.
> > I've seen a few names thrown about in this and another thread. However
no
> > one was correct in naming a single MVP that has posted here until Joseph
> > mentioned my name.
>
> You have stated in an earlier post that there is no list of MVPs that I
> can go view and you invited me to compile a list from the
> microsoft.public newsgroups.  So if you don't know of a list of MVPs,
> how would you possibly know that names thrown around here are NOT also
> MVPs?

Because I have a list of all the Microsoft MVPs.

Dale


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 22:34:09
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> >Their product is not technically "for OS/2", but it works "with OS/2".
> >Technically, Win95 "works with" OS/2.  But they have given OS/2 users
> >some ability to use their latest products, thankfully.
> >
> >I just found it amusing how their product's footprint went from about
> >2.5MB when they had DOS and OS/2 executables, to a whopping 100MB or so
> >when they went the Win9x path.  I'm sure it looks really pretty, but
> >that's not an extra 97.5MB of filesystem support.  ;-)
> >
> >- Marty
> >
>
> Please. I've used Partition Magic from 1 to 4 and no version takes up 100
megs.
> At best,  you may be counting things like the MagicMover or BootMagic, but
> please stop trying to imply that the Windows version takes up such resources
> and offers nothing in return.

How big is Partition Magic 4 then?  I remember trying it and finding it
to be orders of magnitude bigger (100MB to my recollection, but I may be
mistaken), with lots pretty animations, a few new filesystems gained
full support (NTFS and Extended 2 to my recollection), and not much
else.

> Such deception should be beneath you.

It wasn't intended as deception.  It was what I recalled from looking at
the product and trying it.

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 23:11:07
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>> Play on, Dave.
>
> >>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
> >>>> the one playing the "infantile game".
>
> >>> Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.
>
> >> I've done more than just say so, Marty.
>
> > Yes.
>
> Glad you agree, Marty.
>
> > I suppose you might actually believe it too.
>
> I have presented the evidence, Marty.

Yet another example of pontification.  Saying so, no matter how many
times you do, doesn't make it so.  You've presented no evidence of any
weight or merit.  You know better than that Dave.  Or perhaps you
don't.  Keep on playing.

> > That still doesn't make it any more true.
>
> The truth can't be any more true than true, Marty.

And your evidence can't be any more insignificant than you, Dave.

> >> I've reproduced evidence that supports the claim.
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> Yet another example of pontification.  I responded to yet another
> example earlier today.

Incorrect.

> >>> You know better than that Dave.
>
> >> Fortunately, I've done more than just say it.
>
> > Yes,
>
> Glad you agree, Marty.
>
> > but your beliefs are irrelevant to others.
>
> The "more" I've done isn't related to "beliefs", Marty.

So you don't believe that it is true?  Why repeatedly say so then?
That's quite illogical Dave.

> I've provided evidence, which is relevant to others.

Yet another example of pontification.  Saying so, no matter how many
times you do, doesn't make it so.  You've presented no evidence of any
weight or merit.  You know better than that Dave.  Or perhaps you
don't.  Keep on playing.

> >>> Or perhaps you don't.
>
> >> Perhaps not.
>
> > Glad you agree.
>
> That's not a statement of agreement, Marty.

Incorrect.

> Having more reading comprehension problems?

Yes you are.

> >>> Keep on playing.
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
> >> the one playing the "infantile game".
>
> > Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.
>
> The evidence does make it so, Marty.

Yet another example of pontification.  Saying so, no matter how many
times you do, doesn't make it so.  You've presented no evidence of any
weight or merit.  You know better than that Dave.  Or perhaps you
don't.  Keep on playing.

> > You know better than that Dave.
>
> Which is why I've been reproducing evidence rather than just saying so,
> Marty.

Yet another example of pontification.  Saying so, no matter how many
times you do, doesn't make it so.  You've presented no evidence of any
weight or merit.  You know better than that Dave.  Or perhaps you
don't.  Keep on playing.

> > Or perhaps you don't.
>
> Perhaps not, Marty.

Glad you agree.

> And that also isn't a statement of agreement.

Incorrect.

> > Keep on playing.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
> the one playing the "infantile game".

Yet another example of pontification.  Saying so, no matter how many
times you do, doesn't make it so.  You've presented no evidence of any
weight or merit.  You know better than that Dave.  Or perhaps you
don't.  Keep on playing.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               28-Oct-99 23:14:07
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >> Just how many times do I need to tell you that before it sinks in,
> >> Lucien?
>
> > How ironic.
>
> What's allegedly ironic about my statement, Marty?

Guess that hasn't sunk into your think skull yet either.  Too bad.

> >> Your reading comprehension problem constitutes proof that you
> >> don't even know what my statements are, thus your conclusion is
> >> invalid.
>
> > Doubly so.
>
> For you, Marty.

Yes, it is doubly ironic from my perspective seeing your reading
comprehension problems constitute proof that you don't even know what my
statements are, thus your conclusions are invalid.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            28-Oct-99 23:39:27
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

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

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>>
>> >Their product is not technically "for OS/2", but it works "with OS/2".
>> >Technically, Win95 "works with" OS/2.  But they have given OS/2 users
>> >some ability to use their latest products, thankfully.
>> >
>> >I just found it amusing how their product's footprint went from about
>> >2.5MB when they had DOS and OS/2 executables, to a whopping 100MB or so
>> >when they went the Win9x path.  I'm sure it looks really pretty, but
>> >that's not an extra 97.5MB of filesystem support.  ;-)
>> >
>> >- Marty
>> >
>>
>> Please. I've used Partition Magic from 1 to 4 and no version takes up 100
megs.
>> At best,  you may be counting things like the MagicMover or BootMagic, but
>> please stop trying to imply that the Windows version takes up such
resources
>> and offers nothing in return.
>
>How big is Partition Magic 4 then?  I remember trying it and finding it
>to be orders of magnitude bigger (100MB to my recollection, but I may be
>mistaken), with lots pretty animations, a few new filesystems gained
>full support (NTFS and Extended 2 to my recollection), and not much
>else.

My powerquest install directory for Partition Magic, MagicMover, Drivemapper
etc weighs in at 15.5 meg(and this includes patch executables). The PM exec
weighs in at 3.2 megs and this gives you Fat32 support, conversions to and fro

various file systems, linux support, larger harddrive support, a batch mode
that does several changes at one, various diagonostics, in addition to some
pretty animations.

You are very wrong.

>> Such deception should be beneath you.
>
>It wasn't intended as deception.  It was what I recalled from looking at
>the product and trying it.

I find it difficult to believe that you tried it based on your statements.

>- Marty
>

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]               28-Oct-99 20:36:17
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:06:11 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:

>but poorly written - both version were slow as heck.
>
>Well, I have v2.0 published by Borland in 1992.  I still use it for some
>stuff related to my business and don't want to sell it but there MUST be
>other copies out there.  Maybe it was a little slow on 386s but I don't
>recall this.  I don't have access to 386s or even 486s anymore but
>frankly, EVERYTHING that used a GUI was slow on those older machines,

I ran into one of the team members that wrote the code.   He actually told me
how messy the code was (to the point that he was unwilling to admit that he
was part of it) - not the GUI part: that's understandable, but everything
else.

>including Windows 3.1.  We forget how much the video technology, huge
>RAM, and hard drive speeds have improved since then.

>ObjectVision v2.0
>runs very well on OS/2 v4 with current hardware and is a 32-bit OS/2 PM
>application.  Considering how well it works in 1999, 7 YEARS AFTER IT
>WAS PUBLISHED, I would say it was quite well written.

No, it's how well OS/2 is backward compatible (  :=) ).   If IBM bite the
bullet in Merlin and use ASIQ instead of SIQ, it will break just about ALL
applications in existence but get itself out of the SIQ issue.    Should we
love that or hate that?   <grin>

>And yes, it
>is/was a very nice concept.

Indeed.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         29-Oct-99 03:31:28
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>>>> Play on, Dave.

>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
>>>>>> the one playing the "infantile game".

>>>>> Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.

>>>> I've done more than just say so, Marty.

>>> Yes.

>> Glad you agree, Marty.

>>> I suppose you might actually believe it too.

>> I have presented the evidence, Marty.

> Yet another example of pontification.

On the contrary, it's yet another example of the truth.  When evidence
is presented, it's not pontification.

> Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.

Having done so, several times, makes it so.

> You've presented no evidence of any weight or merit.

Incorrect, Marty.  I've presented several quotations of yours.

> You know better than that Dave.

I know that I've presented evidence of weight and merit, which is
better than what you've said.

> Or perhaps you don't.  Keep on playing.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "playing", Marty.  Rather,
it's you who is playing the "infantile game".

>>> That still doesn't make it any more true.

>> The truth can't be any more true than true, Marty.

> And your evidence can't be any more insignificant than you, Dave.

You're erroneously presupposing that I am insignificant, Marty.
The fact that you're continuing to respond to me demonstrates my
significance to you.

>>>> I've reproduced evidence that supports the claim.

>>> Incorrect.

>> Yet another example of pontification.  I responded to yet another
>> example earlier today.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of pontification.

>>>>> You know better than that Dave.

>>>> Fortunately, I've done more than just say it.

>>> Yes,

>> Glad you agree, Marty.

>>> but your beliefs are irrelevant to others.

>> The "more" I've done isn't related to "beliefs", Marty.

> So you don't believe that it is true?

What I believe is irrelevant, Marty.  What I've proven is relevant.

> Why repeatedly say so then?

Where have I repeatedly say what I believe, Marty?

> That's quite illogical Dave.

You're erroneously presupposing that I've repeatedly stated my belief.

>> I've provided evidence, which is relevant to others.

> Yet another example of pontification.

On the contrary, it's yet another example of the truth.  When evidence
is presented, it's not pontification.

> Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.

Having done so, several times, makes it so.

> You've presented no evidence of any weight or merit.

Incorrect, Marty.  I've presented several quotations of yours.

> You know better than that Dave.

I know that I've presented evidence of weight and merit, which is
better than what you've said.

> Or perhaps you don't.  Keep on playing.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "playing", Marty.  Rather,
it's you who is playing the "infantile game".

>>>>> Or perhaps you don't.

>>>> Perhaps not.

>>> Glad you agree.

>> That's not a statement of agreement, Marty.

> Incorrect.

Since when is "perhaps not" a statement of agreement, Marty?

>> Having more reading comprehension problems?

> Yes you are.

Non sequitur, given that I was asking you.

>>>>> Keep on playing.

>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
>>>> the one playing the "infantile game".

>>> Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.

>> The evidence does make it so, Marty.

> Yet another example of pontification.

On the contrary, it's yet another example of the truth.  When evidence
is presented, it's not pontification.

> Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.

Having done so, several times, makes it so.

> You've presented no evidence of any weight or merit.

Incorrect, Marty.  I've presented several quotations of yours.

> You know better than that Dave.

I know that I've presented evidence of weight and merit, which is
better than what you've said.

> Or perhaps you don't.  Keep on playing.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "playing", Marty.  Rather,
it's you who is playing the "infantile game".

>>> You know better than that Dave.

>> Which is why I've been reproducing evidence rather than just saying so,
>> Marty.

> Yet another example of pontification.

On the contrary, it's yet another example of the truth.  When evidence
is presented, it's not pontification.

> Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.

Having done so, several times, makes it so.

> You've presented no evidence of any weight or merit.

Incorrect, Marty.  I've presented several quotations of yours.

> You know better than that Dave.

I know that I've presented evidence of weight and merit, which is
better than what you've said.

> Or perhaps you don't.  Keep on playing.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "playing", Marty.  Rather,
it's you who is playing the "infantile game".

>>> Or perhaps you don't.

>> Perhaps not, Marty.

> Glad you agree.

That's not a statement of agreement, Marty.

>> And that also isn't a statement of agreement.

> Incorrect.

Since when is "perhaps not" a statement of agreement, Marty?

>>> Keep on playing.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing, Marty.  You're
>> the one playing the "infantile game".

> Yet another example of pontification.

On the contrary, it's yet another example of the truth.  When evidence
is presented, it's not pontification.

> Saying so, no matter how many times you do, doesn't make it so.

Having done so, several times, makes it so.

> You've presented no evidence of any weight or merit.

Incorrect, Marty.  I've presented several quotations of yours.

> You know better than that Dave.

I know that I've presented evidence of weight and merit, which is
better than what you've said.

> Or perhaps you don't.  Keep on playing.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "playing", Marty.  Rather,
it's you who is playing the "infantile game".

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         29-Oct-99 03:33:23
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>> Just how many times do I need to tell you that before it sinks in,
>>>> Lucien?

>>> How ironic.

>> What's allegedly ironic about my statement, Marty?

> Guess that hasn't sunk into your think skull yet either.

Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lack a
logical argument.  Note the lack of an explanation for the alleged
irony.

> Too bad.

For you, Marty.

>>>> Your reading comprehension problem constitutes proof that you
>>>> don't even know what my statements are, thus your conclusion is
>>>> invalid.

>>> Doubly so.

>> For you, Marty.

> Yes, it is doubly ironic from my perspective seeing your reading
> comprehension problems

What alleged reading comprehension problems, Marty?

> constitute proof that you don't even know what my
> statements are,

I know exactly what your statements are, Marty.  I've read what you've
written.

> thus your conclusions are invalid.

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             29-Oct-99 03:50:08
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: [e-mail]

So? Why do you think they invented 'regclean'?

Guido


In <[e-mail]>, "Drestin Black"
<[e-mail]> writes:
|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: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                     28-Oct-99 20:51:05
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Win2k & OS/2

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Kelly Robinson wrote:

> October 1996 "OS/2 Magazinre" perspectives article.
>
> John W Thompson went on and on as to why OS/2 v4 was released without proper
> testing and doing a second beta:  some bullshit about a product being
> visible on a market.

Second time and still no substance.   How about a follow-up article on the
released OS/2 needing more testing?  You say IBM decided to make the product
visible and we know since it has shipped that the product worked very well.
Free free to quote a review showing Thompson shipped a immature, buggy WARP
4.0
.


> If Johnnie boy and company opted to keep OS/2 v4 under reigns until they
> fixed all the bugs, the OS/2 fanatical dingdongs would immediately cheer
> about how great IBM is for trying to properly release an operating system.

I didn't think someone could make (or want to make) IBM and Thompson look like
sympathetic characters.  Congratulations.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                             29-Oct-99 04:01:27
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Microsoft MVPs were paid! (But not Dale Ross

From: [e-mail]

Yup, it's a fact. Dale can't claim MS paid him to be so stupid.

You been putting out all these years for free Dale, eh?

Typical ameteur.


Regards,

Guido


In <VTCR3.723$[e-mail]>, "Dale Ross"
<[e-mail]> writes:
|| Mr. Dale Ross, may years ago.
|
|However Mr. Dale Ross never posted here as an MVP. Anything I did then and
|now outside the Microsoft "world", then Microsoft's CompuServe forums, today
|microsoft.public.* is not recognized by Microsoft. That means that every
|user I helped in comp.os.ms-windows.nt.*, the BBS world etc. did not count
|towards the MVP program. And Microsoft has never supported/suggested posting
|by an MVP in the *.advocacy hierarchy of groups.
|
|And the names I've seen thrown out as Microsoft MVPs in this thread...
|Unless they have another name, they do not show up in the Microsoft MVP
|roster. I've never heard of them, I've never seen any of their posts.
|Perhaps the knowledgeable folks here could tell us which products they are
|an MVP for.
|
|Dale
|
|



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

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

From: [e-mail]                               29-Oct-99 00:12:19
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: (1/2) Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > Can anyone believe this shit?
>
> You're trying to get people to believe your "shit", Marty.

I'm not trying to get "people" to believe anything.  I'm trying to get a
mentally ill astronomer to believe what I'm telling him (it?) about what
I stated.

> >>>>>>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.
>
> >>>>>> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example of
> >>>>>> a "lie/game" on my part.
>
> >>>>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.
>
> >>>> Illogically,
>
> >>> Are you still too blind to see it?
>
> >> There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
> >> halluncinating?
>
> > Are you still too blind to see it?
>
> There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
> halluncinating?

Are you still too blind to see it?  Answer: Yes.

Here's another clue Dave... maybe given enough clues you'll be able to
piece it together...

http://x37.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=540806139&CONTEXT=941166684.2138898509&hitnum=
0

> > Answer: Yes.
>
> Illogical, given that there's no reference to any misspelling to see,
> Marty.  Are you halluncinating?

See above, o witless one.

> >>> I used the word "blatant".
>
> >> You also used the word "following", Marty.  You also used the word
> >> "another", Marty.  You also used "lie/game".
>
> > Irrelevant, jackass.
>
> On the contrary, they are just as relevant as the fact that you used
> "blatant", Marty.

Incorrect, as none of their spellings were corrected by Mike.

> > Perhaps if you didn't cut the sentence there and read on, you might
> > understand,
>
> I didn't cut any sentence, Marty.  Note how the the quotation ends
> with a period.
>
> > though in light of your argument below, I don't find that incredibly
> > likely.
>
> I already understand perfectly, Marty.

Incorrect.

> >>> I would have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past)
> >>> if Mike had not corrected me.
>
> >> Illogical, given that I called your attention to your misspelling
> >> of "hypocrisy" and you still got it wrong after that.
>
> > So therefore I would always do the same, no matter who corrects me?
>
> I didn't say that, Marty.  I said that it is illogical for you to
> claim that you would have spelled it wrong if Mike had not corrected
> you.

But Dave, I actually <would have>.  Whether it is logical or not, it's
reality.  Live with it.  Reality and logic are often in conflict with
your inept logic "analysis".  How unfortunate that your logic is utterly
incapable of modelling and explaining the real world.

> > Not only illogical, but moronic Dave.
>
> Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
> logical argument.

Necessary in this case.  I was describing your behavior, not attempting
to insult you personally.

> > I said I would have spelled it wrong if he had not corrected me.
>
> And I said that that is illogical, given your history of still
> spelling words wrong after being told of your incorrect spelling.
>
> > He had corrected me and I have henceforth spelled it correctly.
>
> I told you that there is no such word as "hypocracy", and you have
> henceforth still gotten it wrong.

I'm sorry.  Is that "illogical" to do.  Sorry, but that's life Dave.
Start living it.  Once my spelling is corrected, I'm not guaranteed to
never make the same mistake again.  However, if I am never corrected, it
is almost certain that I will make the same mistake again.  Too bad
reality fails to find a place in your "logical" "analysis".

> > I don't expect you to understand.
>
> I don't expect you to understand that you made no reference to any
> misspelling in the relevant quotation.  You merely extended a thanks
> for some unspecified reason.

Immediately following the correctly spelled word.  If it was for no
reason, then why would I place it there?  Perhaps it was not obvious to
you (that's an understatement), but to the person whom the comment was
addressed, and to whoever read the above-mentioned DejaNews post, it was
obvious.  The reference was made.  You failed to acknowledge it.  In
light of repeated, detailed explanations, you continue to acknowledge
it.  That's moronic, and speaks of an infantile game.

> >>> I thanked him after using the correct spelling.
>
> >> There's no reference to any misspelling, Marty.
>
> > That's because I spelled it correctly this time.
>
> Then you agree that you didn't make any reference to a misspelling.

Incorrect.  I made reference to the mispelling by spelling the same word
correctly.

> Yet you wrote:
>
> M] Are you still too blind to see it?
>
> Do make up your mind, Marty.
>
> > The "reference" was the correctly spelled word.
>
> In reality, there is no reference at all, Marty.

In reality, you failed to realize the reference.  And if Dave Tholen
doesn't see something, well then I guess it doesn't exist in Dave
Tholen's little world.  Fortunately, the rest of us don't reside in such
a utopia.

> You merely extended a thanks for some unspecified (that is, unreferenced)
> reason.
>
> >>> Get over it, moron.
>
> >> Typical invective, coming from someone without a logical argument.
> >> No surprise there.
>
> > No need for logic in this argument.
>
> Is that why you're not using any, Marty?

If I weren't, that would be the reason.

> > The facts are obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of a 3 toed
> > sloth.
>
> Then you must not have "an IQ above that of a 3 toed sloth", Marty.

Your right.  I don't.  My IQ eclipses that of a 3 toed sloth by a large
margin.  Your's however has not been demonstrated to do so.

> >>> A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.
>
> >> A two-year-old also won't see any reference to a misspelling, Marty.
>
> > A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now,
>
> What "concept" are you referring to, Marty?

A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now, but Dave will not.  I
guess he wants to prove that he has more willpower than the
two-year-old.  Don't worry Dave, you'll beat that two-year-old in your
infantile game.

> > but Dave cannot.
>
> On the contrary, I grasped the concept long ago that you extended a
> thanks for some unspecified reason.

Which is the incorrect concept.  Now try grasping what really happened.

> >>>>>> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
> >>>>>> find embarassing:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
> >>>>>> M] Dave's part.
>
> >>>>> While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
> >>>>> question?
>
> >>>> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?
>
> >>> The one which led me to question your reading comprehension facilities.
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of an "idiotically
> >> inappropriate" question, Marty.  What led you to question my reading
> >> comprehension facilities is your continuing "infantile game".
>
> > Speaking of infantile games, are you this stupid
>
> Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
> logical argument.

I was asking a question, not calling you a name or insulting you.  Your
avoidance of the answer is quite telling, however.

> > or is this more proof of your own?
>
> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of some "infantile game"
> on my part, Marty.

Incorrect.

> If I wanted to play some "infantile game" with you,
> I could have responded to any number of your postings while I was
> allegedly in your killfile.  I did not.

That would not have been evidence of an infantile game, Dave.

> Rather, you chose to respond to me, despite me allegedly being in
> your killfile, and it wasn't to discuss any real issue

There is not such thing as discussing a real issue with you Dave.
You'll note that I'm capable of discussing real issues with anyone else
in the forum.  But it must be my failing right?  Never yours.

> (how ironic, given your false accusation that I never discuss issues),

You discuss semantics surrounding issues at best Dave.  You never
discuss issues themselves.

> but rather to comment on the quotation from
> Mr. "134 articles a day"

Isn't Mr. "134 articles a day" you Dave?

> (I'd use his name, but that could trigger
> another round, given that he keys on his name).

On what basis do you make this claim?

> >>>>> Here you go:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>
> >>>> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
> >>>> Marty?
>
> >>> Nothing,
>
> >> Then why did you call it "idiotically inappropriate", Marty?
>
> > I didn't, jackass.
>
> Incorrect, Marty:
>
> M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
> M] question?  Here you go:
> M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

Gee Dave... why do you suppose I wrote "Reading comprehension problems?"
after a different statement?  I've already shown you which question was
inappropriate and you've chosen to remove it from this post.  How
convenient.  Again, in spite of repeated clarifications, your true
idiocy/infantile game shines through.  I already stated how the other
statements were provided for context, a concept with which you are
unfamiliar.

> >>> which is why I wasn't referring to it.
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > Perhaps you were so eager to answer that you forgot to read the rest of
> > the sentence.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.  I read the rest of your sentence and found it to be
> yet another one of your lies, given that you were referring to it:

Again you made a simple mistake, perfectly acceptable to do, as long as
you admit it and move on.  It was pointed out repeatedly, yet you refuse
to accept it.  There's not much hope for you in this world Dave.

> >> Incorrect, Marty.  Here's the relevant excerpt from your posting:
>
> > Now you are telling me what I was referring to,
>
> I'm telling you what you wrote, Marty.

You are telling me what I'm referring to:
M] I was referring to the above question,
DT] Incorrect, given that you were referring to the question that
immediately
DT] followed your "Here you go:", Marty:

And I'm telling you what I wrote.  Now who is more knowledgable in this
area?

> > after repeated corrections on my part.
>
> You wrote what you wrote, Marty.  Don't blame me if you need to correct
> your writings.

I didn't need to correct my writings.  I did it for your benefit.  I see
you are not appreciative as usual.

> > How moronic.
>
> Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
> logical argument.

I was describing your behavior, not attempting to insult you.  Your
behavior itself is what insults you and I can do nothing about that.

> >> M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
> >> M] question?  Here you go:
> >> M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?
>
> Note:  no response.  Embarassed by the evidence, Marty?

See above for the response to your repeated use of this quotation.  Try
to save some bandwidth once in a while, will ya?

> >>>>>>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.
>
> >>>>>>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game"
any
> >>>>>>>> better than you, Marty?
>
> >>> The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.
>
> >> Incorrect, given that you "Here you go" precedes a different question,
> >> Marty.
>
> > Now you are telling me what I was referring to,
>
> I'm telling you what you wrote, Marty.

No, you're telling me what you think I wrote.  I'm telling you what I
wrote.  By all means, keep up the charade and the infantile game.

> > after repeated corrections on my part.
>
> You wrote what you wrote, Marty.  Don't blame me if you need to correct
> your writings.

See above for the response to your repeated use of this quotation.  Try
to save some bandwidth once in a while, will ya?

> > How moronic.
>
> Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
> logical argument.

See above for the response to your repeated use of this quotation.  Try
to save some bandwidth once in a while, will ya?

> > I was referring to the above question,
>
> Incorrect, given that you were referring to the question that immediately
> followed your "Here you go:", Marty:

Incorrect.  I was referring to the question to which responded, "Reading
comprehension problems?"  Of course, you've neatly removed this section
from the posting.  How convenient.

> M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
> M] question?  Here you go:
> M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

See above for the response to your repeated use of this quotation.  Try
to save some bandwidth once in a while, will ya?

> > which led me to question your reading comprehension facilities below.
>
> Erroneously and illogically, Marty.

Obviously not, given the number of followups in which you still don't
comprehend what has transpired.

> > The "Here you go" stuff in the beginning was to provide context,
>
> And an indication of the relevant question, which you reproduced on
> the next line:

Incorrect again.  And I've again noted you neglected to quote the
statement which I have repeatedly cited as the revelant question.  How
convenient.

> > but I don't expect you to understand that concept.
>
> On the contrary, I grasped the concept long ago that you were referring
> to the question that followed your "Here you go:", Marty.

Now try to grasp reality, which is the concept to which I was referring.

[repetition removed]

> >>> Don't bother to admit your mistake.
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing an error on my part, Marty.
>
> > Don't bother to admit your mistake.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing a mistake on my part, Marty.

Wrong again.

> > It's even more painfully obvious by now anyway.
>
> Painful to you, Marty.

It is painful to repeatedly explain what should be blatantly obvious to
a two year old.

> >>>>>>> Reading comprehension problems?
>
> >>>>> Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.
>
> >>>> What alleged embarassment, Marty?
>
> >>> Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.
>
> >> Note the lack of admission, Marty.
>
> > Note the lack of intelligence.
>
> On your part, Marty.

Typical invective.  Meanwhile, where is your grasp of reality?  Why,

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               29-Oct-99 00:12:19
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: (2/2) Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

nowhere to be seen!

> > The rest of us have.
>
> Trying to speak for what the "rest of us" have noticed about you, Marty?

Nope.  Not at all Dave.

> By the way, I noticed that you still haven't answered my question about
> whether the implementation of Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for
> OS/2 is an issue.  Why is that?

It is immaterial with respect to the idiocy you've demonstrated quite
clearly herein.

> Too embarassing for you to admit that I have, in fact, discussed issues,
> contrary to your ridiculous claim?

You've discussed the semantics surrounding issues, not the issues
themselves.  I stand by my statement.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     28-Oct-99 21:05:29
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:18
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>

I found over 10 pages of hits when I did a search.

[e-mail] wrote:

> So? Why do you think they invented 'regclean'?
>
> Guido
>
> In <[e-mail]>, "Drestin Black"
<[e-mail]> writes:
> |I'm sorry, "creeping registry corruption" does not return any hits on any
> |search I've performed.

Search results using google:

Computing.Net - Forums - Windows9x
...dictionary. Rick 23:13:20 6/29/99 (0) Registry-removing driver
references...
...6/30/99 (4) old compaq486 missing registry files streetsinger 17:03:53...
computing.net/windows95/wwwboard/wwwboard.html Cached (61k)  New! Try out
GoogleScout

Cause of Registry corruption?
...Next Thread | Cause of Registry corruption? Base: Registry...
...White, 8/18/98 to: "Cause of Registry corruption?" | Subscribe |...
www.win95mag.com/HyperNews/get/registry/49.html Cached (10k)  New! Try out
GoogleScout

     registry "backups"
     ...& Tricks Re: Cause of Registry corruption? (Bill Weaver)...
     ...Previous Message | Next Thread | registry "backups" Base: Registry...
     www.win95mag.com/HyperNews/get/registry/49/1.html Cached (12k)  New! Try
out GoogleScout

Office for Windows Troubleshooting Kernel32.dll Error Messages in Microsoft Of
...CD-ROM Drive Cache Check for Registry Corruption Check the Hard...
...Return to Top Check for Registry Corruption Important This section...
support.microsoft.com/support/office/content/kernel32/kernel32b.asp Cached
(30k)  New! Try out
GoogleScout

     Q179827 - Blue Screens Caused by Pool Corruption Due to Registry Handle
Leak
     ...Screens Caused by Pool Corruption Due to Registry Handle Leak The...
     ...by an application containing a registry handle leak. This leak
occurs...
     support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q179/8/27.asp Cached (11k)
New! Try out GoogleScout

The Risks Digest Volume 19: Issue 60
...Massive NT Outage due to Registry corruption Mike Andrews Airport...
...Massive NT Outage due to Registry corruption...
catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.60.html Cached (34k)  New! Try out GoogleScout

Compaq.com - Home & Home Office Computing - Service & Support
...referred to as the Registry. If there is some corruption to any of...
...restart the computer. Registry Corruption The registry in...
www.compaq.com/athome/support/paqtip/20042.html Cached (21k)  New! Try out
GoogleScout

www.wown.com/j_helmig/nttcpbad.htm
 New! Try out GoogleScout

Patchwork Built into Windows 98 (Desktop Control) / May 1998
...more likely to occur than Registry corruption. Only if the problem...
...corrupted ones. Because Registry corruption can prevent Windows...
www.zdnet.com/wsources/content/0598/hd_dc.html Cached (24k)  New! Try out
GoogleScout

bootNet ... Ask Alex: Ini or Outy [982251611.html]
...the corruption, avoiding a more serious problem. If a Registry...
...Clinic you had a reader with registry corruption problems who was...
www.bootnet.com/askalex/982251611.html Cached (9k)  New! Try out GoogleScout


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               29-Oct-99 00:38:11
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> >>
> >> >Their product is not technically "for OS/2", but it works "with OS/2".
> >> >Technically, Win95 "works with" OS/2.  But they have given OS/2 users
> >> >some ability to use their latest products, thankfully.
> >> >
> >> >I just found it amusing how their product's footprint went from about
> >> >2.5MB when they had DOS and OS/2 executables, to a whopping 100MB or so
> >> >when they went the Win9x path.  I'm sure it looks really pretty, but
> >> >that's not an extra 97.5MB of filesystem support.  ;-)
> >> >
> >> >- Marty
> >> >
> >>
> >> Please. I've used Partition Magic from 1 to 4 and no version takes up 100
megs.
> >> At best,  you may be counting things like the MagicMover or BootMagic,
but
> >> please stop trying to imply that the Windows version takes up such
resources
> >> and offers nothing in return.
> >
> >How big is Partition Magic 4 then?  I remember trying it and finding it
> >to be orders of magnitude bigger (100MB to my recollection, but I may be
> >mistaken), with lots pretty animations, a few new filesystems gained
> >full support (NTFS and Extended 2 to my recollection), and not much
> >else.
>
> My powerquest install directory for Partition Magic, MagicMover, Drivemapper
> etc weighs in at 15.5 meg(and this includes patch executables). The PM exec
> weighs in at 3.2 megs and this gives you Fat32 support, conversions to and
fro
> various file systems, linux support, larger harddrive support, a batch mode
> that does several changes at one, various diagonostics, in addition to some
> pretty animations.
>
> You are very wrong.

As all I have to doubt your statements is a fuzzy recollection, I will
take your word on this.

> >> Such deception should be beneath you.
> >
> >It wasn't intended as deception.  It was what I recalled from looking at
> >the product and trying it.
>
> I find it difficult to believe that you tried it based on your statements.

I had, and ruled it out almost immediately for some reason.  I guess it
was just the lack of an OS/2 native EXE.

- Marty

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               29-Oct-99 00:42:14
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Mike Timbol wrote:
>
> > For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
> > when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.
>
> Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
> let's take a closer look at that file.  Here's the output from the
> LIST program in hexadecimal mode.  Notice the corresponding filename
> in the first line (you can also tell when I downloaded it):
>
> ] LIST       1   00%        08/10/99 23:06  JAVAINUF.EXE
> ] 000000  4D 5A 50 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 0F 00 FF FF 00 00  MZP     
> ] 000010  B8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 1A 00 00 00 00 00          @
> ] 000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> ] 000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00               

> ] 000040  BA 10 00 0E 1F B4 09 CD 21 B8 01 4C CD 21 90 90       ! 
L !É╔
> ] 000050  54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73  This program mus
> ] 000060  74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F  t be run under O
> ] 000070  53 2F 32 2E 0D 0A 24 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  S/2.
>
> (I did replace one tab character with a space to preserve the alignment
> of the columns on the right side.)
>
> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite clearly,
> the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

Now let's try one more thing.  Run Unzip with this EXE file as a
parameter.  You'll note that it has a standard info-zip style central
directory entry within it, which can be easily identify by nearly any
standard decompression program.  Hence, it is quite possible to
decompress this "OS/2 only" self-extracting archive on a different
platform.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             28-Oct-99 22:14:15
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>

Dale Ross wrote:
>
> > > I know what Dvorak said. I am asking about a "Credit" which is
> apparently
> > > something different.
> >
> > Why would you think there is a difference between an "MVP Credit" and an
> > "MVP Buck."  They sound like the same type of thing to me.
>
> Because of the context of the question. It was asked as if you could earn
> credits any time.
>
> > > These "MVP Bucks" are then applied towards a purchase in the Microsoft
> > > company store. You cannot use an "MVP buck" to pay your rent, you cannot
> use
> > > it to buy food. You can pick up a book, or a copy of software or a new
> > > mouse. If Microsoft makes it you will probably find it in the company
> store.
> >
> > Well, Microsoft has an employee store in Redmond.  Are the MVP Bucks
> > good there?  What about the new Microsoft store in San Francisco?  And
> > an MVP Buck sounds like an MVP Credit to me in this context.
>
> As far as I know Redmond only
>
> > > Who? Joseph. Take a look at the thread above you. Do I know the answer?
> I've
> > > already given my answer, but I'll give it again for you. I know of no
> other
> > > current or past MVP that has posted here in cooa other than yours truly.
> > > I've seen a few names thrown about in this and another thread. However
> no
> > > one was correct in naming a single MVP that has posted here until Joseph
> > > mentioned my name.
> >
> > You have stated in an earlier post that there is no list of MVPs that I
> > can go view and you invited me to compile a list from the
> > microsoft.public newsgroups.  So if you don't know of a list of MVPs,
> > how would you possibly know that names thrown around here are NOT also
> > MVPs?
>
> Because I have a list of all the Microsoft MVPs.

Do all of the Microsoft MVPs get a copy of this list?  And how is it
updated?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             28-Oct-99 22:21:14
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>

Kim Cheung wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:06:11 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
>
> >but poorly written - both version were slow as heck.
> >
> >Well, I have v2.0 published by Borland in 1992.  I still use it for some
> >stuff related to my business and don't want to sell it but there MUST be
> >other copies out there.  Maybe it was a little slow on 386s but I don't
> >recall this.  I don't have access to 386s or even 486s anymore but
> >frankly, EVERYTHING that used a GUI was slow on those older machines,
>
> I ran into one of the team members that wrote the code.   He actually told
me
> how messy the code was (to the point that he was unwilling to admit that he
> was part of it) - not the GUI part: that's understandable, but everything
> else.

All I can say is that it works well.  Maybe he worked on another version
or something.  Why is the GUI part understandable?  It's all GUI.  Are
we talking about the same software?  Would you like me to send you some
screenshots?


>
> >including Windows 3.1.  We forget how much the video technology, huge
> >RAM, and hard drive speeds have improved since then.
>
> >ObjectVision v2.0
> >runs very well on OS/2 v4 with current hardware and is a 32-bit OS/2 PM
> >application.  Considering how well it works in 1999, 7 YEARS AFTER IT
> >WAS PUBLISHED, I would say it was quite well written.
>
> No, it's how well OS/2 is backward compatible (  :=) ).   If IBM bite the
> bullet in Merlin and use ASIQ instead of SIQ, it will break just about ALL
> applications in existence but get itself out of the SIQ issue.    Should we
> love that or hate that?   <grin>
>
> >And yes, it
> >is/was a very nice concept.
>
> Indeed.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                 29-Oct-99 06:41:15
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

In article <7varr0$4bc$[e-mail]>,
Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>I see you've deleted not only the evidence for your lie, but also the
>entire discussion surrounding it.  Too embarassed, Mike?

I've already made my points in that area; you've refused to address them.
I see no need to repeat myself yet again, as any interested readers
following the discussion undoubtedly saw them one of the first three times.

>>>>>>>> I looked at several files, including classes.zip.
>
>>>>>>> Where did you find this file, Mike?
>
>>>>>> In the JDK, you moron.  You asked for the name of the file in the JDK
>>>>>> that contains the information, so I gave you the name of a file in the
>>>>>> JDK.
>
>>>>> I donwloaded the JDK months ago, Mike.     <<<<<----------<<<<<
>>>>> There is no file named "classes.zip"
>>>>> among the files available for download.
>>>>> Try again.
>
>>>> Dave, I didn't say you could download classes.zip separately,
>
>>> In which case your answer doesn't do any good, Mike.
>
>> On the contrary, I assumed that you had enough intelligence to navigate
>> IBM's web site and download the JDK. Obviously, the challenge is too
>> great for you.
>
>Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone without a logical
>argument.  Also quite untrue, given that I downloaded the JDK months ago.

If you knew where it was, then you could see that it contained the
file classes.zip, which is exactly what I said.

>And it doesn't change the fact that your answer doesn't do any good,
>because you didn't provide enough information for the casual reader to
>check your claims.

The casual reader could have also downloaded the JDK, just as I said.

>>> Which file did you
>>> download that contains classes.zip?  In other words, take the position of
>>> the casual reader who wishes to verify your claims.  They can't find any
>>> separate classes.zip file, so which file should they download, Mike?
>
>> As I've said many times, it's in the JDK.  I assume that the casual
>> reader is intelligent enough to be able to find IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2
>> on IBM's web site and download it.
>
>And in which of the top-level files will the casual reader find the
>classes.zip file, Mike?

The casual reader doesn't have to know the name of the file to download
it, Dave.  It's much easier to find "IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2" than to
find "the file named javaiunf.exe".

>> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
>> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.
>
>Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
>let's take a closer look at that file.  Here's the output from the
>LIST program in hexadecimal mode.  Notice the corresponding filename
>in the first line (you can also tell when I downloaded it):
>
>] LIST       1   00%        08/10/99 23:06  JAVAINUF.EXE
>] 000000  4D 5A 50 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 0F 00 FF FF 00 00  MZP      áá
>] 000010  B8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 1A 00 00 00 00 00  ⌐       @
>] 000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>] 000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00               

>] 000040  BA 10 00 0E 1F B4 09 CD 21 B8 01 4C CD 21 90 90  Ç ù ü!⌐
Lü!╔╔
>] 000050  54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73  This program mus
>] 000060  74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F  t be run under O
>] 000070  53 2F 32 2E 0D 0A 24 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  S/2.
>
>(I did replace one tab character with a space to preserve the alignment
>of the columns on the right side.)
>
>Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite clearly,
>the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

I didn't need to run the program, Dave.  You're jumping to illogical
conclusions based on your ignorance.  Let's see why...

>Yet Mike also clearly wrote:
>
>  ] Message-ID: <7umhkp$qg6$[e-mail]>
>  ]
>MT] >> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.
>  ] >
>DT] >Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>  ]
>MT] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>
>Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
>on an OS/2 system to boot!

Completely incorrect.  To run the file, one must have an OS/2 system
(or emulator).  You do not need to run the file to look at the contents.

>So, I must again ask the question:
>
>Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not comprehend it
the first time:

  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents."

What you apparently don't realize is that the file is a self-extracting
executable.  Such files are compressed using a standard archive format
which is portable across platforms.  I used WinZip to unzip the file,
Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

>>>> I said that the file is *IN THE JDK*.
>
>>> In which file, Mike?  Which top-level file did you download that contains
>>> classes.zip?  Why do you continue to avoid answering the question?
>
>> I'm not avoiding the question at all -- you just keep changing the
>> questions you're asking, because you don't have the faintest idea what
>> you're talking about.
>
>On the contrary, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Obviously not.  The file you're talking about is a self-extracting exe,
the contents of which can be viewed by any number of programs on any
number of platforms.

>See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.

And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.  Good show.

>>>> If you really downloaded (and installed) the JDK, then the file is
>>>> already on your system.
>
>>> Irrelevant, Mike.  I want to know where *you* saw the contents.
>
>> And I told you -- it's part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2.  Duh.
>
>And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>
>] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>
>Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
>requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
>running OS/2.  That's a keeper.

It's also an incorrect conclusion based on your ignorance.  I could
read the contents of the file from Linux, Solaris, Windows NT, even
DOS.  I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT.

Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your logic is.

     - Mike

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

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

From: [e-mail]               28-Oct-99 23:54:09
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:21:28 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:

>All I can say is that it works well.  Maybe he worked on another version
>or something.  Why is the GUI part understandable?  It's all GUI.  Are
>we talking about the same software?  Would you like me to send you some
>screenshots?

When I say "it's slow" - I always put it in perspective: memory, video, CPU,
technology at the time - and so forth.

The part that was very slow was walking the logic tree, evaluating dependency
branches, data base table mapping and so forth: nothing to do with GUI.

I did some extensive work with OV.    :=)

Still love the way they utilize REXX - very classic.



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

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

From: [e-mail]                               29-Oct-99 07:31:25
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: Re: IBM Licenses SciTech Graphics Technology!

From: [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

> [e-mail] wrote:

>> It's the exact opposite of what Peter was saying.  Peter says that
>> there is a rule in the US *requiring* phone companies to provide
>> flat-rate service.  I don't know if it's true that there is such a
>> national rule, but in fact flat-rate service is, if not universal, at
>> least common in the US.  In fact, your cited URL says, "However,
>> since most states require phone companies to charge a flat rate for
>> unlimited local usage...".

> First off it says most states, not the federal government. And second,
> he implied that connections to local ISPs were to be billed (should
> this purported ruling not exist) like long distance calls, which was
> never true. This was the so-called "modem tax". that never existed.

Get the feeling that this is becoming a discussion over my head <g>
about the source of what phone-companies are doing over there. I do
not really care if it commercial practice, a ruling, law or a consent decree.

What I was pointing at (originally) is that there is a difference (as far as I
know) in the way customers are charged in the USA and in Europe for
the time they are connected to their ISP's local call access point.

As far as I understood in the USA you pay a flat monthly fee regardless
of the time you connect to whatever phone-number in your local area.

As it was put so clearly in a post of jack Througton:

In Europe, you pay by the minute whether you are calling around the
world or next door.

As far as I understand the URL you posted I was right after all. Or do
you pay per minute also for your local phone-connections in the USA?
BTW I did not imply what you state above at all. I just pointed out that
there is a difference in the way AFAI we are charged here for local calls
and you over there in the USA. Be its source a ruling or whatever. I did
not state anything about what would be the situation over there if that
ruling or whatever did not exist. It is completely beyond my imagination
to profetize what market- and political forces would create there then. So
please do not put words ("he implied") into my writing which were not there.

I was merely trying to tell that this difference in charging for local calls
is hampering the growth of Internet usage in Europe and would hamper
the browsing at a leisure in support-databases or elsewhere for European
users. That is a point often overlooked by USA-companies who do not re-
alize that we pay per second for our local calls over here. That was it about.

Regards from Leeuwarden
Peter van Dobben de Bruijn
---
usethenet.at.the-net-4u.com (.at. becomes @)
----

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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            29-Oct-99 08:23:21
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:35:40, Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Karel Jansens wrote:
> >
> > That one I don't remember. I quite liked CA Textor (the Windows
> > version) and I played a bit with Realiser (the OS/2 version), the
> > latter one until I realised that programming and I go together like...
> > like... - like two things that don't go together well.
>
> Like Tholen and common sense?  ;-)
>
> - Marty

Apparently that's your opinion. I beg to differ.
But then, like I said: I'm no programmer; just an ordinary dude.

(I could put a ":^)", but I find your remark just an itsy little bit
too sneaky for that. Leave me out of it, please. I don't even bother
to follow those threads anymore, they give me a headache - from both
sides. There's a lot of things I could say, but I'm getting tired of
being jumped on by every moron(*) in this NG for liking the unpopular
guy. I know I'm supposed to be here for the entertainment, but S&M is
not really my thing).


(*) You're not in the moron class -- yet!

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            29-Oct-99 08:23:24
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:06:11, "David T. Johnson"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Well, I have v2.0 published by Borland in 1992.  I still use it for some
> stuff related to my business and don't want to sell it but there MUST be
> other copies out there.  Maybe it was a little slow on 386s but I don't
> recall this.  I don't have access to 386s or even 486s anymore but
> frankly, EVERYTHING that used a GUI was slow on those older machines,
> including Windows 3.1.  We forget how much the video technology, huge
> RAM, and hard drive speeds have improved since then.  ObjectVision v2.0
> runs very well on OS/2 v4 with current hardware and is a 32-bit OS/2 PM
> application.  Considering how well it works in 1999, 7 YEARS AFTER IT
> WAS PUBLISHED, I would say it was quite well written.  And yes, it
> is/was a very nice concept.

This actually is the first time I regret someone not being "converted"
from Warp to Windows. :^)

If you ever jump ship (May it never happen!), remember me before you
dump your ObjectVision/2 with the garbage.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         29-Oct-99 08:21:08
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> Mike Timbol wrote:

>>> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
>>> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.

>> Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
>> let's take a closer look at that file.  Here's the output from the
>> LIST program in hexadecimal mode.  Notice the corresponding filename
>> in the first line (you can also tell when I downloaded it):
>>
>> ] LIST       1   00%        08/10/99 23:06  JAVAINUF.EXE
>> ] 000000  4D 5A 50 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 0F 00 FF FF 00 00  MZP     
>> ] 000010  B8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 1A 00 00 00 00 00  á       @
>
>> ] 000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>> ] 000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00               

>> ] 000040  BA 10 00 0E 1F B4 09 CD 21 B8 01 4C CD 21 90 90  á á á!á
Lá!╔╔
>> ] 000050  54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73  This program mus
>> ] 000060  74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F  t be run under O
>> ] 000070  53 2F 32 2E 0D 0A 24 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  S/2.
>>
>> (I did replace one tab character with a space to preserve the alignment
>> of the columns on the right side.)
>>
>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite clearly,
>> the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

> Now let's try one more thing.  Run Unzip with this EXE file as a
> parameter.  You'll note that it has a standard info-zip style central
> directory entry within it, which can be easily identify by nearly any
> standard decompression program.  Hence, it is quite possible to
> decompress this "OS/2 only" self-extracting archive on a different
> platform.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether the implementation of
Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty.
Can't you finish what you start before jumping into other discussions?
Oh yeah, you aren't following me around like a puppy, according to you.
Yeah right.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               29-Oct-99 10:52:00
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: Re: StarOffice 3.1 try and buy: how to get it working?

From: Thomas Galley <[e-mail]>

Hey!

If you like older (and faster) versions, I've got an old CD from
StarOffice with just StarWriter 2.0. I have not been using it for some
years, but I suppose it works okay. So, if you want it, I will post it
to you. Just say "Here"!

Greetings/2

Thomas

Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> I found a trial version of StarOffice 3.1 on my Warp 4 Sampler CD (I
> never really looked at it before, since I got what I need, but I
> chucked it in by mistake and had a look).
>
> Does anyone know how to get this thing working properly? I sent a mail
> to StarDivision, but they don't reply (probably don't remember they
> ever made the thing).
>
> Before calling me a weird luddite, let me tell you why I like it. It's
> small, it's fast, and best of all, it doesn't have that ridiculous
> StarDesktop taking over a perfectly working WPS setup. I know it's not
> as stable as 5.1 and it lacks a lot of the features, but the
> spreadsheet and drawing applications are quite nice, so I'd like to
> give it a go... provided I can keep it working for more than 30 days.
>
> Anyone?
>
> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
>
>   É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
>   º                   boot options                    ║
>   º                                                   ║
>   º              Please choose from list              ║
>   º                                                   ║
>   º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
>   º                                                   ║
>   º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
>   º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
>   ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝
>
> If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

--
PIRONET INTRANET AG
Thomas Paul Galley, MA (CCNA) - Internet/Intranet Trainee
Im Mediapark 5 - 50670 Köln
Tel.: [phone] - FAX: [phone]
mailto:[e-mail] - http://www.pironet.com
certified professional Java Programmer (see link below)
http://www.tekmetrics.com/transcript.shtml?pid=57102

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PIRONET AG News-System (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         29-Oct-99 09:35:19
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

>> Marty writes:

>>> Like Tholen and common sense?  ;-)

>> Typical invective, and even more evidence that you're playing an
>> "infantile game", Marty.

> If he was only trying to get me into the discussion, I tend to agree
> (with the "game" part, that is). It is however difficult to infer
> intentions from one little sentence.

I've relying on far more than "one little sentence".

> BTW, I don't second his comparison (analogy? - No, better not use that
> word, people might start frothing at the mouth again), although, by
> continuing your silly thread, you _both_ lost some credits in my book.

I don't find it silly to counter Marty's lies about me.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         29-Oct-99 09:33:21
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: (1/2) Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> Can anyone believe this shit?

>> You're trying to get people to believe your "shit", Marty.

> I'm not trying to get "people" to believe anything.

Then why are you foisting your illogic on the newsgroup, Marty?

> I'm trying to get a mentally ill astronomer

Who might that be, Marty?

> to believe what I'm telling him (it?) about what I stated.

Well, you're talking to the wrong person, Marty, given that I'm not
"mentally ill".

>>>>>>>>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.

>>>>>>>> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example of
>>>>>>>> a "lie/game" on my part.

>>>>>>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.

>>>>>> Illogically,

>>>>> Are you still too blind to see it?

>>>> There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
>>>> halluncinating?

>>> Are you still too blind to see it?

>> There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
>> halluncinating?

> Are you still too blind to see it?

There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
halluncinating?

> Answer: Yes.

Illogical, given that there is no reference to any misspelling to see,
Marty.

> Here's another clue Dave... maybe given enough clues you'll be able to
> piece it together...
>
>
http://x37.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=540806139&CONTEXT=941166684.2138898509&hitnum=
0

Irrelevant, Marty.  The issue is the alleged "lie/game" on my part.  The
above so-called "clue" has nothing to do with that alleged "lie/game".

>>> Answer: Yes.

>> Illogical, given that there's no reference to any misspelling to see,
>> Marty.  Are you halluncinating?

> See above,

Your URL is a reference to an article that has nothing to do with the
alleged "lie/game" on my part, Marty.

> o witless one.

Typical invective, as is usual for someone lacking a logical argument.

>>>>> I used the word "blatant".

>>>> You also used the word "following", Marty.  You also used the word
>>>> "another", Marty.  You also used "lie/game".

>>> Irrelevant, jackass.

>> On the contrary, they are just as relevant as the fact that you used
>> "blatant", Marty.

> Incorrect, as none of their spellings were corrected by Mike.

Irrelevant, given that no reference was made to any spelling corrections
in the sentence in question, Marty.  Reference was made to an alleged
"lie/game" on my part, however.  Still having reading comprehension
problems, Marty?

>>> Perhaps if you didn't cut the sentence there and read on, you might
>>> understand,

>> I didn't cut any sentence, Marty.  Note how the the quotation ends
>> with a period.

Note:  no response.

>>> though in light of your argument below, I don't find that incredibly
>>> likely.

>> I already understand perfectly, Marty.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>>>> I would have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past)
>>>>> if Mike had not corrected me.

>>>> Illogical, given that I called your attention to your misspelling
>>>> of "hypocrisy" and you still got it wrong after that.

>>> So therefore I would always do the same, no matter who corrects me?

>> I didn't say that, Marty.  I said that it is illogical for you to
>> claim that you would have spelled it wrong if Mike had not corrected
>> you.

> But Dave, I actually <would have>.

How can you predict the future, Marty?

> Whether it is logical or not, it's reality.

Since when is a prediction of the future "reality", Marty?

> Live with it.

I'm putting up with your illogic daily, Marty.

> Reality and logic are often in conflict with your inept logic "analysis".

Is that how you're trying to explain your illogic, Marty?

> How unfortunate that your logic is utterly incapable of modelling
> and explaining the real world.

On the contrary, my logic is modeling and explaining the real world
right now, Marty.  Your "infantile game" continues.

>>> Not only illogical, but moronic Dave.

>> Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
>> logical argument.

> Necessary in this case.

What makes invective necessary, Marty?

> I was describing your behavior, not attempting to insult you personally.

Incorrect, Marty, as you were not describing my behavior at all.
Rather, you were describing your "infantile game".

>>> I said I would have spelled it wrong if he had not corrected me.

>> And I said that that is illogical, given your history of still
>> spelling words wrong after being told of your incorrect spelling.

>>> He had corrected me and I have henceforth spelled it correctly.

>> I told you that there is no such word as "hypocracy", and you have
>> henceforth still gotten it wrong.

> I'm sorry.  Is that "illogical" to do.

It is illogical to claim that you would have gotten "blatant" wrong if
you hadn't been corrected.

> Sorry, but that's life Dave.

Your illogical life, Marty.

> Start living it.

I'm putting up with your illogic daily, Marty.

> Once my spelling is corrected, I'm not guaranteed to never make the
> same mistake again.

Obviously, especially when playing an "infantile game".

> However, if I am never corrected, it is almost certain that I will
> make the same mistake again.

You've been making the same mistake, or a different mistake, even
after being corrected, Marty.

> Too bad reality fails to find a place in your "logical" "analysis".

I'm putting up with the reality of your "infantile game" on a daily
basis, Marty.

>>> I don't expect you to understand.

>> I don't expect you to understand that you made no reference to any
>> misspelling in the relevant quotation.  You merely extended a thanks
>> for some unspecified reason.

> Immediately following the correctly spelled word.

All the words were correctly spelled, Marty, therefore the placement
of the thanks carries no special significance to someone reading your
posting.

> If it was for no reason, then why would I place it there?

The key word here is "if".  There could be a reason, namely thanking
Mike for the example of the alleged "lie/game" on my part, Marty.

> Perhaps it was not obvious to you (that's an understatement),

All the words were correctly spelled, Marty, therefore the placement
of the thanks carries no obvious significance to anyone other than
you or Mike.

> but to the person whom the comment was addressed,

That would be me, Marty.  I had no part of your discussion with
Mike.

> and to whoever read the above-mentioned DejaNews post, it was
> obvious.

The key word here is "and", Marty.  Why are you presupposing that
everyone who read your statement would also be aware of your previous
discussion with Mike?

> The reference was made.

To an alleged "lie/game" on my part, Marty.  No reference was made to
any misspelling.

> You failed to acknowledge it.

On the contrary, I acknowledged your reference to my alleged "lie/game".

> In light of repeated, detailed explanations, you continue to acknowledge
> it.

You just contradicted yourself, Marty.  How can I continue to acknowledge
that which you claimed I failed to acknowledge?  Do make up your mind,
Marty.

> That's moronic,

How ironic, coming from someone who can't even maintain a consistent
argument.

> and speaks of an infantile game.

Your "infantile game", Marty.

>>>>> I thanked him after using the correct spelling.

>>>> There's no reference to any misspelling, Marty.

>>> That's because I spelled it correctly this time.

>> Then you agree that you didn't make any reference to a misspelling.

> Incorrect.

Where's the alleged reference to a misspelling, Marty?

> I made reference to the mispelling by spelling the same word
> correctly.

Illogical, Marty.  I'm spelling my words correctly in this sentence.
Am I making references to misspellings?

Did you make references to every single word you spelled correctly?

>> Yet you wrote:
>>
>> M] Are you still too blind to see it?
>>
>> Do make up your mind, Marty.

>>> The "reference" was the correctly spelled word.

>> In reality, there is no reference at all, Marty.

> In reality, you failed to realize the reference.

There is no reference to see, Marty.

> And if Dave Tholen doesn't see something, well then I guess it doesn't
> exist in Dave Tholen's little world.

A reference to a misspelling doesn't exist in anyone's little world,
Marty, except apparently your own, where reality takes a back seat to
fantasy as part of your "infantile game".

> Fortunately, the rest of us don't reside in such a utopia.

You prefer to live in your fantasy world, Marty?

>> You merely extended a thanks for some unspecified (that is, unreferenced)
>> reason.

Note:  no response.

>>>>> Get over it, moron.

>>>> Typical invective, coming from someone without a logical argument.
>>>> No surprise there.

>>> No need for logic in this argument.

>> Is that why you're not using any, Marty?

> If I weren't, that would be the reason.

Your reason is illogical as well.  Well, at least you're being consistent
there.

>>> The facts are obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of a 3 toed
>>> sloth.

>> Then you must not have "an IQ above that of a 3 toed sloth", Marty.

> Your right.  I don't.

Pretty bad, Marty.

> My IQ eclipses that of a 3 toed sloth by a large margin.

You just stated that your IQ is *not* above that of a 3 toed sloth,
Marty.  Now you're saying it *is* above that of a 3 toed sloth by a
large margin.  Yet another example of your inconsistency.  Do make up
your mind, Marty.

> Your's however has not been demonstrated to do so.

I'm not the one making inconsistent statements, Marty, or seeing
references to misspellings that aren't there.

>>>>> A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now.

>>>> A two-year-old also won't see any reference to a misspelling, Marty.

>>> A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now,

>> What "concept" are you referring to, Marty?

> A two-year-old could grasp the concept by now,

What "concept" are you referring to, Marty?  I see you didn't answer
the question.

> but Dave will not.

What "concept" are you referring to, Marty?  I see you didn't answer
the question.

> I guess he wants to prove that he has more willpower than the
> two-year-old.

You guessed wrong again, Marty.

> Don't worry Dave, you'll beat that two-year-old in your
> infantile game.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing an "infantile game",
Marty.

>>> but Dave cannot.

>> On the contrary, I grasped the concept long ago that you extended a
>> thanks for some unspecified reason.

> Which is the incorrect concept.

Yet another example of your pontification.

> Now try grasping what really happened.

I grasped the concept long ago that you extended a thanks for some
unspecified reason.

>>>>>>>> Here, let me restore that which you apparently
>>>>>>>> find embarassing:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> M] The following is another blatant (thanks Mike) lie/game on
>>>>>>>> M] Dave's part.

>>>>>>> While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
>>>>>>> question?

>>>>>> What allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" question, Marty?

>>>>> The one which led me to question your reading comprehension facilities.

>>>> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of an "idiotically
>>>> inappropriate" question, Marty.  What led you to question my reading
>>>> comprehension facilities is your continuing "infantile game".

>>> Speaking of infantile games, are you this stupid

>> Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
>> logical argument.

> I was asking a question, not calling you a name or insulting you.

Incorrect, Marty.  I suggest you look up the definition of "insult".

> Your avoidance of the answer is quite telling, however.

What alleged "avoidance", Marty?

>>> or is this more proof of your own?

>> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of some "infantile game"
>> on my part, Marty.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>> If I wanted to play some "infantile game" with you,
>> I could have responded to any number of your postings while I was
>> allegedly in your killfile.  I did not.

> That would not have been evidence of an infantile game, Dave.

Funny how you think the present exchange is evidence, given that you
started the exchange.

>> Rather, you chose to respond to me, despite me allegedly being in
>> your killfile, and it wasn't to discuss any real issue

> There is not such thing as discussing a real issue with you Dave.

Oh really?  Tell me, Marty, is the matter of Java 1.1.8 for OS/2
implementing Java 1.2 functionality a "real issue"?

> You'll note that I'm capable of discussing real issues with anyone
> else in the forum.

Then why aren't you doing so with me, Marty?  More evidence of the
fact that you're playing an "infantile game".

> But it must be my failing right?

You're the one who started the exchange with me, Marty.

> Never yours.

I didn't start the exchange with you, Marty.

>> (how ironic, given your false accusation that I never discuss issues),

> You discuss semantics surrounding issues at best Dave.

Yet another lie.  Still haven't learned your lesson, have you, Marty?
Once a liar, always a liar.

> You never discuss issues themselves.

Oh really?  Tell me, Marty, is the matter of Java 1.1.8 for OS/2
implementing Java 1.2 functionality a "real issue"?

>> but rather to comment on the quotation from
>> Mr. "134 articles a day"

> Isn't Mr. "134 articles a day" you Dave?

Nope.  Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?

>> (I'd use his name, but that could trigger
>> another round, given that he keys on his name).

> On what basis do you make this claim?

On the basis of what he said when I asked him how he managed to find
a reference to him in this newsgroup, Marty.  Gee, you were following
the quotations so carefully.  How did you manage to miss that tidbit
of information?

>>>>>>> Here you go:

>>>>>>>>>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

>>>>>> What's allegedly "idiotically inappropriate" about that question,
>>>>>> Marty?

>>>>> Nothing,

>>>> Then why did you call it "idiotically inappropriate", Marty?

>>> I didn't, jackass.

>> Incorrect, Marty:
>>
>> M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
>> M] question?  Here you go:
>> M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

> Gee Dave... why do you suppose I wrote "Reading comprehension problems?"
> after a different statement?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         29-Oct-99 09:33:21
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: (2/2) Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

Non sequitur.  The quotation above doesn't involve you writing "reading
comprehension problems".

> I've already shown you which question was inappropriate

I've already shown you which question you identified as "idiotically
inappropriate":

M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
M] question?  Here you go:
M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

> and you've chosen to remove it from this post.

That's not the one you referred to as "idiotically inappropriate", Marty.

> How convenient.

Disappointed that your diversion didn't work, Marty?

> Again, in spite of repeated clarifications,

Having trouble writing what you mean, Marty?

> your true idiocy/infantile game shines through.

You're erroneously presupposing some "true idiocy/infantile game" on my
part, Marty.

> I already stated how the other statements were provided for context,

I already stated that your "Here you go:" identified the alleged
"idiotically inappropriate" question.

> a concept with which you are unfamiliar.

Good writing appears to be a concept with which you are unfamiliar,
Marty.

>>>>> which is why I wasn't referring to it.
>>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>> Perhaps you were so eager to answer that you forgot to read the rest of
>>> the sentence.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  I read the rest of your sentence and found it to be
>> yet another one of your lies, given that you were referring to it:

> Again you made a simple mistake,

You're erroneously presupposing a "simple mistake" on my part, Marty.
I correctly noted the question which followed your "Here you go:".

> perfectly acceptable to do, as long as you admit it and move on.

It's illogical to admit to an alleged mistake that isn't really a
mistake.  It's logical for you to admit that you referred to the
wrong question.

> It was pointed out repeatedly, yet you refuse to accept it.

I refuse to accept your claim that I made a mistake.  If you put the
"Here you go:" in front of the wrong question, then it's your writing
mistake, Marty, and you should be the one making the admission.

> There's not much hope for you in this world Dave.

Typical invective, as is usual for someone lacking a logical argument.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.  Here's the relevant excerpt from your posting:

>>> Now you are telling me what I was referring to,

>> I'm telling you what you wrote, Marty.

> You are telling me what I'm referring to:
> M] I was referring to the above question,
> DT] Incorrect, given that you were referring to the question that
> DT] immediately followed your "Here you go:", Marty:

That happens to be what you wrote, Marty.  Don't your writings
accurately reflect what you're referring to, Marty?

> And I'm telling you what I wrote.

I already know what you wrote, Marty.  I reproduced it.

> Now who is more knowledgable in this area?

I would expect both of us to be equally capable of reproducing what was
actually written.  However, given your failure to acknowledge the fact
that I have admitted to errors, I can only wonder of your capability to
accurately reproduce what was actually written.

>>> after repeated corrections on my part.

>> You wrote what you wrote, Marty.  Don't blame me if you need to correct
>> your writings.

> I didn't need to correct my writings.

Then why are you claiming that the "Here you go:" was not in front of
the question you intended to refer to?

> I did it for your benefit.

You're erroneously presupposing that you corrected your writings.

> I see you are not appreciative as usual.

Why should I be appreciative of your false accusations, Marty?

>>> How moronic.

>> Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
>> logical argument.

> I was describing your behavior, not attempting to insult you.

I suggest you take another look at that dictionary definition of "insult",
Marty.

> Your behavior itself is what insults you

Illogical, Marty.

> and I can do nothing about that.

On the contrary, you can eliminate your illogical invective.

>>>> M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
>>>> M] question?  Here you go:
>>>> M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

>> Note:  no response.  Embarassed by the evidence, Marty?

> See above for the response to your repeated use of this quotation.

See above for my response to your response, Marty.

> Try to save some bandwidth once in a while, will ya?

How ironic, coming from someone who ignored his killfile and started
posting thousands of lines, simply because he was laid up at home with
some illness and had nothing better to do than sit in front of his
computer and play an "infantile game" on USENET.

>>>>>>>>>>> Ruskai, who corrected my blatant misspelling.

>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think he's able to identify an alleged "lie/game"
any
>>>>>>>>>> better than you, Marty?

>>>>> The above is the idiotically inappropriate question.

>>>> Incorrect, given that you "Here you go" precedes a different question,
>>>> Marty.

>>> Now you are telling me what I was referring to,

>> I'm telling you what you wrote, Marty.

> No, you're telling me what you think I wrote.

Incorrect, Marty.  I reproduced exactly what you wrote:

M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
M] question?  Here you go:
M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

> I'm telling you what I wrote.

I already know what you wrote, Marty:

M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
M] question?  Here you go:
M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

> By all means, keep up the charade and the infantile game.

You're erroneously presupposing some charade and "infantile game" on my
part, Marty.

>>> after repeated corrections on my part.

>> You wrote what you wrote, Marty.  Don't blame me if you need to correct
>> your writings.

> See above for the response to your repeated use of this quotation.

See above for my response to your response, Marty.

> Try to save some bandwidth once in a while, will ya?

How ironic, coming from someone who just repeated the same sentence.

How ironic, coming from someone who ignored his killfile and started
posting thousands of lines, simply because he was laid up at home with
some illness and had nothing better to do than sit in front of his
computer and play an "infantile game" on USENET.

>>> How moronic.

>> Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
>> logical argument.

> See above for the response to your repeated use of this quotation.

See above for my response to your response, Marty.

> Try to save some bandwidth once in a while, will ya?

How ironic, coming from someone who just repeated the same sentence.

How ironic, coming from someone who ignored his killfile and started
posting thousands of lines, simply because he was laid up at home with
some illness and had nothing better to do than sit in front of his
computer and play an "infantile game" on USENET.

>>> I was referring to the above question,

>> Incorrect, given that you were referring to the question that immediately
>> followed your "Here you go:", Marty:

> Incorrect.

Balderdash, Marty.

> I was referring to the question to which responded, "Reading
> comprehension problems?"

Illogical, given that your "Here you go:" did not immediately precede that
question, Marty.

> Of course, you've neatly removed this section from the posting.

It did not immediately follow your "Here you go:", Marty.

> How convenient.

How appropriate to eliminate your diversion.

>> M] While you're at it, why not restore your idiotically inappropriate
>> M] question?  Here you go:
>> M] >>>>> And which Mike are you referring to?

> See above for the response to your repeated use of this quotation.

See above for my response to your response, Marty.

> Try to save some bandwidth once in a while, will ya?

How ironic, coming from someone who just repeated the same sentence.

How ironic, coming from someone who ignored his killfile and started
posting thousands of lines, simply because he was laid up at home with
some illness and had nothing better to do than sit in front of his
computer and play an "infantile game" on USENET.

>>> which led me to question your reading comprehension facilities below.

>> Erroneously and illogically, Marty.

> Obviously not, given the number of followups in which you still don't
> comprehend what has transpired.

On the contrary, I'm comprehending your illogical excuses just fine,
Marty.

>>> The "Here you go" stuff in the beginning was to provide context,

>> And an indication of the relevant question, which you reproduced on
>> the next line:

> Incorrect again.

Balderdash, Marty.

> And I've again noted you neglected to quote the statement which I
> have repeatedly cited as the revelant question.

And I will again note that your "Here you go:" did not immediately
precede that question, Marty.

> How convenient.

How appropriate to avoid your diversion.

>>> but I don't expect you to understand that concept.

>> On the contrary, I grasped the concept long ago that you were referring
>> to the question that followed your "Here you go:", Marty.

> Now try to grasp reality,

I've already grasped reality, Marty.

> which is the concept to which I was referring.

You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't grasped reality, Marty.

> [repetition removed]

How ironic, coming from someone who repeated the following several
times:

M] Try to save some bandwidth once in a while, will ya?

Hypocrite.

>>>>> Don't bother to admit your mistake.

>>>> You're erroneously presupposing an error on my part, Marty.

>>> Don't bother to admit your mistake.

>> You're erroneously presupposing a mistake on my part, Marty.

> Wrong again.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>> It's even more painfully obvious by now anyway.

>> Painful to you, Marty.

> It is painful to repeatedly explain what should be blatantly obvious to
> a two year old.

Especially when you're wrong.

>>>>>>>>> Reading comprehension problems?

>>>>>>> Note the change in subject when you realized your embarassment.

>>>>>> What alleged embarassment, Marty?

>>>>> Note the lack of denial of changing the subject.

>>>> Note the lack of admission, Marty.

>>> Note the lack of intelligence.

>> On your part, Marty.

> Typical invective.

Where, Marty?

> Meanwhile, where is your grasp of reality?

Throughout this thread, Marty.

> Why, nowhere to be seen!

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>> The rest of us have.

>> Trying to speak for what the "rest of us" have noticed about you, Marty?

> Nope.  Not at all Dave.

Then why did you write "The rest of us have", Marty?

>> By the way, I noticed that you still haven't answered my question about
>> whether the implementation of Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for
>> OS/2 is an issue.  Why is that?

> It is immaterial with respect to the idiocy you've demonstrated quite
> clearly herein.

What alleged "idiocy", Marty?  It's quite material to yet another one of
your lies.

>> Too embarassing for you to admit that I have, in fact, discussed issues,
>> contrary to your ridiculous claim?

> You've discussed the semantics surrounding issues, not the issues
> themselves.

Prove it, if you think you can, Marty.

> I stand by my statement.

Just like you stood by your statement about me allegedly never admitting
to errors.  How does it feel to be consistently wrong, Marty?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         29-Oct-99 09:54:07
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>> I see you've deleted not only the evidence for your lie, but also the
>> entire discussion surrounding it.  Too embarassed, Mike?

> I've already made my points in that area; you've refused to address them.

I've already provided the evidence in that area.  You've deleted it
each time.  I'll restore it again.

> I see no need to repeat myself yet again,

I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, Mike.  I want you to admit that
what Joseph wrote was not the "bullshit" you claimed it to be.  I want
you to admit that my response was not so short because I deleted most
of Joseph's posting, but rather because you did.

> as any interested readers following the discussion undoubtedly saw
> them one of the first three times.

They haven't seen you admit to your errors at all, Mike.

>>>>>>>>> I looked at several files, including classes.zip.

>>>>>>>> Where did you find this file, Mike?

>>>>>>> In the JDK, you moron.  You asked for the name of the file in the JDK
>>>>>>> that contains the information, so I gave you the name of a file in the

>>>>>>> JDK.

>>>>>> I donwloaded the JDK months ago, Mike.     <<<<<----------<<<<<
>>>>>> There is no file named "classes.zip"
>>>>>> among the files available for download.
>>>>>> Try again.

>>>>> Dave, I didn't say you could download classes.zip separately,

>>>> In which case your answer doesn't do any good, Mike.

>>> On the contrary, I assumed that you had enough intelligence to navigate
>>> IBM's web site and download the JDK. Obviously, the challenge is too
>>> great for you.

>> Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone without a logical
>> argument.  Also quite untrue, given that I downloaded the JDK months ago.

> If you knew where it was, then you could see that it contained the
> file classes.zip, which is exactly what I said.

The key word here is "if".  I never said that, Mike.  Furthermore, what
I know won't do the casual reader any good.

>> And it doesn't change the fact that your answer doesn't do any good,
>> because you didn't provide enough information for the casual reader to
>> check your claims.

> The casual reader could have also downloaded the JDK, just as I said.

Not if they needed OS/2 to run the executables and don't have it, Mike.

>>>> Which file did you
>>>> download that contains classes.zip?  In other words, take the position of
>>>> the casual reader who wishes to verify your claims.  They can't find any
>>>> separate classes.zip file, so which file should they download, Mike?

>>> As I've said many times, it's in the JDK.  I assume that the casual
>>> reader is intelligent enough to be able to find IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2
>>> on IBM's web site and download it.

>> And in which of the top-level files will the casual reader find the
>> classes.zip file, Mike?

> The casual reader doesn't have to know the name of the file to download
> it, Dave.

You expect them to guess which file it's in, Mike?

> It's much easier to find "IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2" than to
> find "the file named javaiunf.exe".

It's not easier to find "classes.zip", Mike.

>>> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
>>> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.

>> Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
>> let's take a closer look at that file.  Here's the output from the
>> LIST program in hexadecimal mode.  Notice the corresponding filename
>> in the first line (you can also tell when I downloaded it):
>>
>> ] LIST       1   00%        08/10/99 23:06  JAVAINUF.EXE
>> ] 000000  4D 5A 50 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 0F 00 FF FF 00 00  MZP      áá
>> ] 000010  B8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 1A 00 00 00 00 00  ⌐       @
>
>> ] 000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>> ] 000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00               

>> ] 000040  BA 10 00 0E 1F B4 09 CD 21 B8 01 4C CD 21 90 90  Ç ù ü!⌐
Lü!╔╔
>> ] 000050  54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73  This program mus
>> ] 000060  74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F  t be run under O
>> ] 000070  53 2F 32 2E 0D 0A 24 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  S/2.
>>
>> (I did replace one tab character with a space to preserve the alignment
>> of the columns on the right side.)
>>
>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite clearly,
>> the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

> I didn't need to run the program, Dave.

Then how did you manage to get at classes.zip, Mike?

> You're jumping to illogical conclusions based on your ignorance.
> Let's see why...

This ought to be good.

>> Yet Mike also clearly wrote:
>>
>>   ] Message-ID: <7umhkp$qg6$[e-mail]>
>>   ]
>> MT] >> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.
>>   ] >
>> DT] >Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>>   ]
>> MT] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>>
>> Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
>> on an OS/2 system to boot!

> Completely incorrect.

Balderdash, Mike.

> To run the file, one must have an OS/2 system (or emulator).

Do you have an OS/2 emulator, Mike?

> You do not need to run the file to look at the contents.

Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
file?

>> So, I must again ask the question:
>>
>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not comprehend it
> the first time:
>
>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents."

And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?

> What you apparently don't realize is that the file is a self-extracting
> executable.

Here's the output, Mike:

] PKSFX(R)  Version 2.50  FAST!  Self Extract Utility for OS/2  5-1-1997
] Copyright 1989-1997 PKWARE Inc.  All Rights Reserved. Shareware Version
] PKSFX Reg. U.S. Pat. and Tm. Off.

Notice how it says "Self Extract Utility for OS/2".  Not Windows NT, Mike.

> Such files are compressed using a standard archive format which is
> portable across platforms.

Since when is the LX executable file format portable across platforms,
Mike?  (See bytes 100 and 101 hex.)

> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:

] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
]   a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
]   latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
]   the last disk(s) of this archive.
] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

>>>>> I said that the file is *IN THE JDK*.

>>>> In which file, Mike?  Which top-level file did you download that contains
>>>> classes.zip?  Why do you continue to avoid answering the question?

>>> I'm not avoiding the question at all -- you just keep changing the
>>> questions you're asking, because you don't have the faintest idea what
>>> you're talking about.

>> On the contrary, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

> Obviously not.  The file you're talking about is a self-extracting exe,
> the contents of which can be viewed by any number of programs on any
> number of platforms.

Here's the output, Mike:

] PKSFX(R)  Version 2.50  FAST!  Self Extract Utility for OS/2  5-1-1997
] Copyright 1989-1997 PKWARE Inc.  All Rights Reserved. Shareware Version
] PKSFX Reg. U.S. Pat. and Tm. Off.

Notice how it says "Self Extract Utility for OS/2".  Not Windows NT, Mike.

>> See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.

> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
> question.

You're presupposing that I've reached incorrect conclusions regarding
the file in question, Mike.

> You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.

Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.

> Good show.

You're providing the entertainment, Mike.

>>>>> If you really downloaded (and installed) the JDK, then the file is
>>>>> already on your system.

>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.  I want to know where *you* saw the contents.

>>> And I told you -- it's part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2.  Duh.

>> And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>>
>> ] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>>
>> Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
>> requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
>> running OS/2.  That's a keeper.

> It's also an incorrect conclusion based on your ignorance.

What alleged ignorance, Mike?

> I could read the contents of the file from Linux, Solaris, Windows
> NT, even DOS.

DOS responds with:

] This program must be run under OS/2.

> I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT.

Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:

] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
]   a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
]   latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
]   the last disk(s) of this archive.
] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your logic is.

Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your evidence is,
Mike.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: [e-mail]
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$[e-mail]>
]
] 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.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: [e-mail] (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$[e-mail]>
]
] In article <[e-mail]>, Joseph  <[e-mail]> 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.
]
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
]
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <[e-mail]>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
]
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
]
] > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
]
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on.
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
]
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
]
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
]
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         29-Oct-99 09:54:07
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 11:30:19
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.


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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            29-Oct-99 10:45:12
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 14:46:21
Subj: Re: StarOffice 3.1 try and buy: how to get it working?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:52:01, Thomas Galley <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hey!
>
> If you like older (and faster) versions, I've got an old CD from
> StarOffice with just StarWriter 2.0. I have not been using it for some
> years, but I suppose it works okay. So, if you want it, I will post it
> to you. Just say "Here"!
>
I even got a DOS version of StarWriter collecting dust here.
But I'm not really interested in the WP part (it lacks some features I
need, a.o. the ability to create frames that repeat on every page of a
document - an extremely silly omission in StarWriter IMHO).

But thanks for the offer.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            29-Oct-99 10:45:13
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 14:46:21
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:35:38, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
>
> >> Marty writes:
>
> >>> Like Tholen and common sense?  ;-)
>
> >> Typical invective, and even more evidence that you're playing an
> >> "infantile game", Marty.
>
> > If he was only trying to get me into the discussion, I tend to agree
> > (with the "game" part, that is). It is however difficult to infer
> > intentions from one little sentence.
>
> I've relying on far more than "one little sentence".
>
I suppose you have. I've stopped reading your exchanges with Marty
some time ago, so I cannot comment on those. I'll wait for Marty's
reply.

> > BTW, I don't second his comparison (analogy? - No, better not use that
> > word, people might start frothing at the mouth again), although, by
> > continuing your silly thread, you _both_ lost some credits in my book.
>
> I don't find it silly to counter Marty's lies about me.
>
I suppose you wouldn't, from your point of view. To me, without vested
interests, the whole thing became eerily resemblant to "Did not! - Did
too!" exchanges. I guess one has to be in there to really appreciate
it.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  É╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╗
  º                   boot options                    ║
  º                                                   ║
  º              Please choose from list              ║
  º                                                   ║
  º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
  º                                                   ║
  º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
  º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
  ╘╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╓╝

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     29-Oct-99 13:37:19
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 14:46:21
Subj: Re: StarOffice 3.1 try and buy: how to get it working?

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>

Hi!
Completely agree with you about SO3.1. Have you actually tried using it
more than 30 days? Mine ran close to 3 months before I wiped the drive
to build a new system.It *would* be nice to have it as a choise....

Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands


Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> I found a trial version of StarOffice 3.1 on my Warp 4 Sampler CD (I
> never really looked at it before, since I got what I need, but I
> chucked it in by mistake and had a look).
>
> Does anyone know how to get this thing working properly? I sent a mail
> to StarDivision, but they don't reply (probably don't remember they
> ever made the thing).
>
> Before calling me a weird luddite, let me tell you why I like it. It's
> small, it's fast, and best of all, it doesn't have that ridiculous
> StarDesktop taking over a perfectly working WPS setup. I know it's not
> as stable as 5.1 and it lacks a lot of the features, but the
> spreadsheet and drawing applications are quite nice, so I'd like to
> give it a go... provided I can keep it working for more than 30 days.
>
> Anyone?
>
> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
>
>   É                                                   ╗
>   º                   boot options                    ║
>   º                                                   ║
>   º              Please choose from list              ║
>   º                                                   ║
>   º               <OS/2>        <linux>               ║
>   º                                                   ║
>   º[Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending ║
>   º         of advocacy program. No refunds]          ║
>                                                       ╝
>
> If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Internet Access Eindhoven, the Netherlands (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             29-Oct-99 11:40:08
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 14:46:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <7vaq9o$4bc$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:

> > See the "costly mistakes" thread for the proof.
>
> There is no proof for your claim in that thread, Lucien.

Review the thread; the proof is there.

> >>> Your statement about the "implements" sentence:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> is congruent with my thesis statement.
>
> >> But it doesn't apply to the present situation, given that we have
> >> presence of additional information.
>
> > But it is still congruent with my thesis statement (taken directly
from
> > the "costly mistakes" thread).
>
> Your thesis statement is irrelevant, given that it doesn't apply to
> the present situation, Lucien.

Wrong. It does apply, and is supported by your own statements. Let's
review your mistake again:

My thesis:

the "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" sentences are
ambiguous WRT to quantification, in the absence of peri-verbal
information.

Your (congruent) statement:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

You also several times refer to and therefore affirm the presence of
this underlying ambiguity.

This constitutes proof that you now unwittingly agree with my argument.

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]                            29-Oct-99 12:33:25
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 14:46:22
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> Dale Ross wrote:
> > Because I have a list of all the Microsoft MVPs.
>
> Do all of the Microsoft MVPs get a copy of this list?  And how is it
> updated?

Of course all MVPs have access to the list. Microsoft updates the list. You
give me a name, I'll tell you which product they are an MVP for. Like I
said, I've seen no one here name an MVP other than myself.

Dale


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

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

From: [e-mail]                             29-Oct-99 13:28:08
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 14:46:22
Subj: Re: 1999 Warp OS/2 vs Windows 2000

From: [e-mail]

In <7v7uos$[e-mail]|, "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]|
writes:

The fact that there is a 1999 edition of OS/2 Warp is significant. I
Do not think IBM planned that. It was forced on them by the banks
and other large OS/2 users, IMO. In fact, portions of the 1999 OS/2
had likely been reserved for 64 bit and non Intel processors,
like the new file system.

Does Win2000 have JFS?
Does Win2000 have TCP/IP stacks so superior that a VPN can be
created?

On that last item. Is the IBM Internet Phone OS/2 based? I know that
IBM had been working in France replacing the Mintel telephone system.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm
has some information on the IBM Internet Phone

|Well that java's got me sold. (not, java is still nowhere near ready for
|mainstream use, even Win2000 itself is much more suited for the task!)
|
|If you ask me, any IT professional worth a damn ain't gonna upgrade to
|nuttin' until at least mid-2000 when the Y2K crisis is over with.
|
|Anyone changing things or upgrading right now is playing with fire.
|
|More amusingly, you keep copying Microsoft's date-code as a revision number.
|Unless IBM's stupid enough to do that and you're lemming enough to
|mynah-bird them.  (they've copied MS business tactics before but, as always,
|end up doing them too late and looking dumb...)

 In the 25 August 1997 Infoworld, Ed Scannell, on page one,
 stated that the WorkSpace on Demand implementation of OS/2
  "could give IBM significant technical advantages over rival
 Windows NT and Unix server architectures, which will not
 deliver this capability until the later half of 1998 at the earliest."

 The capability has yet to be delivered. But will Windows 2000
 have them? We know that the 1999 Warp OS/2 is priced similarly
 to Windows 2000 and is targeted for the same group of business
 users. I would like to compile a list of deficiencies in the Windows 2000
 offering, using 1999 Warp as the standard for comparison. Perhaps
 others can expand the list. I do not have enough information on
 Windows 2000 yet to know if more that the following are missing.

 load balancing/ SMP support
 compatibility with Novell 5.1's webshere/visual age
 100% Pure Java
 need for new versions of office software
 security
 Sun approved JVM

 http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm



|

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             29-Oct-99 13:38:15
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 14:46:22
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]>, "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>
writes:
>Can anyone think of an ISV that formerly developed and sold a
>substantial OS/2 product and then stopped selling it "cold turkey" in
>favor a Windows version?  You know the story:  OS/2 is a dying
>platform.  There are hardly any OS/2 users.  The OS/2 marketplace is
>dead.  There are hundreds of millions of Windows users who throw money
>at software like sailors do at naked women.  Etc.  Etc.  So what has
>happened to these OS/2 ISVs?
>
>Microrim used to sell a product called R:base for OS/2.  Now, Microrim
>seems to be gone.  There is a small company called Rbase Technologies
>that seems to still sell R:base but they do not appear to be very
>prosperous.
>
>SPG used to sell a program called Colorworks for OS/2.  They stopped
>with the OS/2 product and moved to Windows with a critically-acclaimed
>"Colorworks:Web3."  Now, they sell "Colorworks:Web4" and advertise their
>contract programming services on their web site.  It doesn't look like
>there will be an IPO anytime soon.
>
>Borland was a large software company that sold development tools for
>OS/2 including a C++ compiler and application builders like
>ObjectVision.  Now they are smaller-sized company called Borland/Inprise
>and their biggest product seems to be a Java enterprise development tool
>called Jbuilder.  They look to be doing OK but not exactly setting the
>world on fire.
>
>So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
>their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?

There is AutoDesk. Of course with Microsoft's purchase of Visio; that could
change real fast.

There is also Corel. Corel was very close to a new version of WordPerfect
for OS/2 before going 100% windows. They have since moved away from
Microsoft.

It is apparent from the DoJ antitrust case that Microsoft likely forced
companies to abandon OS/2.

IBM itself abandoned marketing OS/2 owing to Microsoft's bullying. That
is the the testimony given during the case.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/lsmonop.htm
has more informaton

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                       29-Oct-99 15:03:04
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 14:46:22
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Illya Vaes <[e-mail]>

Dale Ross wrote:
>"David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>>Dale Ross wrote:
>>>It is very easy to know WHO is in the MVP program. Go to the
>>>microsoft.public.* newsgroups. MVPs are very easy to spot.
>>Are you suggesting that these so-called easy-to-spot MVPs are the ONLY
>>MVPs?
>Yes I am suggesting that these easy to spot Microsft MVPs are the only
>MVPs.
>>So tell us, Dale, where can we see the official list of MVPs?  Or
>>is it confidential?
>There is no list that you can go view.
>If you want to compile a list, why not got to deja.com, use the keywords,
>Microsoft and MVP and pull the names that come from the microsoft.public.*
>groups. You can spot an MVP one of two ways, some place it in their From
>Line, and you will find it in their .sig.

Wrong. You've admitted to being an MVP when replying to Joseph Coughlan:

Joseph:
>>One would say some of the folks who frequented the OS/2 newsgroups when MS
>>was shipping NT vaporware and the crippled NT 3.1 are now in the MVP
>>program.
You:
>No not too many of them are. In fact I cannot name a single one besides
>myself.

But nowhere in your From line (or any header line) or your signature (what
signature, "Dale" ?) is there *any* mention of MVP.
Or should we assume that you use two signatures, one for MS groups and one for
advocacy? That would corroborate the secrecy of MVP-advocacy for MS.

Either way, you misrepresent yourself (yourselves).
Go away, liar(s).

--
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]                                       29-Oct-99 15:25:03
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 14:46:22
Subj: Re: Giga says Win2k worth the money

From: Illya Vaes <[e-mail]>

Marty wrote:
>Illya Vaes wrote:
>>"David H. McCoy" quoted some "analyst"
>>>Microsoft designed Windows 2000 from the ground up [...]
>>Ah, the Windows 95 approach.
>>That tells any critical reader enough, methinks.
>How could the Win95 approach be "from the ground up"?  Unless you count
>DOS as the "ground", that is.

I was talking about the "marketing speak", ie. talking about Win95 (in plain
English: advertising),
You talk of the actual technological contents, which is just the stark
difference I meant to imply.
W2000 isn't designed from the ground up (which the Winvocates have been
telling us when it suited them better, eg. for compatibility, that W2K is
derived from NT 4), and neither was Win95. But MS spread the fairy-tale around
and the rags duly copied it, even stating that Win95 "doesn't need DOS
anymore" and oh, "you get a 32bit DOS" in one sentence.

How anyone still can believe all this crap is beyond me...

--
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]                                       29-Oct-99 15:18:05
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 14:46:22
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Illya Vaes <[e-mail]>

Dale Ross wrote:
>"David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>>Well, here's what John Dvorak said:
>>"The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many
>>of these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks.
>>The concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP
>>home page seems to be discounts of some sort."
>I know what Dvorak said. I am asking about a "Credit" which is apparently
>something different.

Don't be pedantic for argument's sake.
If someone says he'll pay you "ten bucks", will you say "no, that's not good,
I want ten US dollars"???
Anyone not intent on misreading could easily identify the term as "the value
you get", whether that value has the "name" "Buck", "Credit" or "Dale".

>These "MVP Bucks" are then applied towards a purchase in the Microsoft
>company store. You cannot use an "MVP buck" to pay your rent, you cannot
>use it to buy food.

But you can spend the money it saves you when buying that book on your rent or
food.
It's still payment, whether you like the term or not.

>People come here and the Windows advocacy groups to argue about their
>choice of OS. Debating these kinds of issues simply isn't in the game plan
>for an MVP. An MVP works the microsoft.public.* groups and that is it.

Even if you were saying this in good faith, you cannot tell what's in the
"game plan" of other individuals, and neither can you stop any MVP with a name
known to you from using some anonymous mailing account.

>Anything outside of those groups is not recognized by Microsoft.

"Steve Barkto" wasn't "recognized by Microsoft" (initially) either.
Hell, "Watergate" wasn't "recognized" (initially) by Nixon.
So what?

>Outside of those groups they are on their own.

Which even if true doesn't necessarily stops them. In fact, didn't you just
state that anyone posting here was "on his own" anyway?

>And yes you will find MVPs outside the microsoft.public groups. You will
>find them in places like comp.os.ms-windows.misc for example. Microsoft
>MVPs help users with problems using Microsoft software. That's what we do.

That's nice of those MVPs. It's sure a whole lot more than what all those
Winvocates did/do in Windows groups, after urging people to leave OS/2.
Helping people with problems? "Windows ain't got no problems, it's the best"

--
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]                                  29-Oct-99 13:45:15
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 14:46:22
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Jim Stuyck <[e-mail]>

By the way, Esther, let's not forget OneUp! and that outfit that
originally wrote the GRE for OS/2 (it was so long ago that I've
forgotten their name -- they were located in suburban Dallas).

Both outfits were Big Time into OS/2.  OneUp! provided a lot
of support for the Dallas/Fort Worth OS/2 User's Group, including
use of their facility for meetings.  They wrote SMART which, it
appears, not enough OTHER ISVs used (converted source code
to OS/2 native).

<sigh>

Jim Stuyck

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: J. D. Stuyck and Associates -- Retired (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               29-Oct-99 09:58:18
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 14:46:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".
> Or are you really that idiotic?

Now he's stealing my lines!  What a hypocrite.  Yet more evidence that
he's playing his own "infantile game".  Or is he really that idiotic?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

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

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          29-Oct-99 08:58:24
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 14:46:22
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, [e-mail] posted :

> So? Why do you think they invented 'regclean'?

And why do you think they invented Unimaint for OS/2? :))

> |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.


--
-=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]...               29-Oct-99 17:49:01
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: Re: Reality check

Message sender: [e-mail]

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Oh, it returns a hit cause it's looking for those words using an OR. so any
page with "creeping" would be returned too. Did you get many haunted house
sites? or "corruption" - did that list any polititions sites?

BTW: I got more hits when I searched for "linux kernel panic" - hmm....

Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> I found over 10 pages of hits when I did a search.
>
> [e-mail] wrote:
>
> > So? Why do you think they invented 'regclean'?
> >
> > Guido
> >
> > In <[e-mail]>, "Drestin Black"
<[e-mail]> writes:
> > |I'm sorry, "creeping registry corruption" does not return any hits on
any
> > |search I've performed.
>
> Search results using google:
>
> Computing.Net - Forums - Windows9x
> ...dictionary. Rick 23:13:20 6/29/99 (0) Registry-removing driver
references...
> ...6/30/99 (4) old compaq486 missing registry files streetsinger
17:03:53...
> computing.net/windows95/wwwboard/wwwboard.html Cached (61k)  New! Try out
GoogleScout
>
> Cause of Registry corruption?
> ...Next Thread | Cause of Registry corruption? Base: Registry...
> ...White, 8/18/98 to: "Cause of Registry corruption?" | Subscribe |...
> www.win95mag.com/HyperNews/get/registry/49.html Cached (10k)  New! Try out
GoogleScout
>
>      registry "backups"
>      ...& Tricks Re: Cause of Registry corruption? (Bill Weaver)...
>      ...Previous Message | Next Thread | registry "backups" Base:
Registry...
>      www.win95mag.com/HyperNews/get/registry/49/1.html Cached (12k)  New!
Try out GoogleScout
>
> Office for Windows Troubleshooting Kernel32.dll Error Messages in
Microsoft Of
> ...CD-ROM Drive Cache Check for Registry Corruption Check the Hard...
> ...Return to Top Check for Registry Corruption Important This section...
> support.microsoft.com/support/office/content/kernel32/kernel32b.asp Cached
(30k)  New! Try out
> GoogleScout
>
>      Q179827 - Blue Screens Caused by Pool Corruption Due to Registry
Handle Leak
>      ...Screens Caused by Pool Corruption Due to Registry Handle Leak
The...
>      ...by an application containing a registry handle leak. This leak
occurs...
>      support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q179/8/27.asp Cached (11k)
New! Try out GoogleScout
>
> The Risks Digest Volume 19: Issue 60
> ...Massive NT Outage due to Registry corruption Mike Andrews Airport...
> ...Massive NT Outage due to Registry corruption...
> catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.60.html Cached (34k)  New! Try out GoogleScout
>
> Compaq.com - Home & Home Office Computing - Service & Support
> ...referred to as the Registry. If there is some corruption to any of...
> ...restart the computer. Registry Corruption The registry in...
> www.compaq.com/athome/support/paqtip/20042.html Cached (21k)  New! Try out
GoogleScout
>
> www.wown.com/j_helmig/nttcpbad.htm
>  New! Try out GoogleScout
>
> Patchwork Built into Windows 98 (Desktop Control) / May 1998
> ...more likely to occur than Registry corruption. Only if the problem...
> ...corrupted ones. Because Registry corruption can prevent Windows...
> www.zdnet.com/wsources/content/0598/hd_dc.html Cached (24k)  New! Try out
GoogleScout
>
> bootNet ... Ask Alex: Ini or Outy [982251611.html]
> ...the corruption, avoiding a more serious problem. If a Registry...
> ...Clinic you had a reader with registry corruption problems who was...
> www.bootnet.com/askalex/982251611.html Cached (9k)  New! Try out
GoogleScout
>
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             29-Oct-99 13:19:20
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Kim Cheung wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:36:19 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
>
> >On current hardware, these things occur essentially instantaneosly with
> >the applications I have implemented with it.
>
> Yep - because there shouldn't be any trouble doing these things with a
386/16
> processor over ISA bus.    123 walked the dependency tree on the original
> floppy based 4.77MHZ PC.

ObjectVision for OS/2 v2.0 is a 32-bit application and required a 386
minimum which would have run at 16 Mhz or more.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          29-Oct-99 20:35:13
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>
>On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net posted :
>
>> (this really is the last time I'll crosspost this to COMNA.
>
>Yeah, you do that. :) We'll miss you dearly ...Boohoo ... sob.
>
>> I'm getting tired of people replying to siglines instead of the post.
>
>Yiieeaaah, whatever. But you see, we're not used to that level of
>stupidity in these parts, so when we see it, it's unnerving and we
>just gotta comment on it.
>
>So the COOA subscribers are used to you huh? Well, go back to them.
>
>> Have fun with your MVP grants while they still last.)
>
>LOL. What a winner guys. :))))

Yes, OS/2 Advocates have become the laughing stocks of the computer
industry. Even IBM thumbs its nose at OS/2 Advocates, even while those
clueless advocates are doing free sales promotion for an IBM product.
Talk about gullible suckers!

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             29-Oct-99 13:26:04
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:06:11, "David T. Johnson"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, I have v2.0 published by Borland in 1992.  I still use it for some
> > stuff related to my business and don't want to sell it but there MUST be
> > other copies out there.  Maybe it was a little slow on 386s but I don't
> > recall this.  I don't have access to 386s or even 486s anymore but
> > frankly, EVERYTHING that used a GUI was slow on those older machines,
> > including Windows 3.1.  We forget how much the video technology, huge
> > RAM, and hard drive speeds have improved since then.  ObjectVision v2.0
> > runs very well on OS/2 v4 with current hardware and is a 32-bit OS/2 PM
> > application.  Considering how well it works in 1999, 7 YEARS AFTER IT
> > WAS PUBLISHED, I would say it was quite well written.  And yes, it
> > is/was a very nice concept.
>
> This actually is the first time I regret someone not being "converted"
> from Warp to Windows. :^)
>
> If you ever jump ship (May it never happen!), remember me before you
> dump your ObjectVision/2 with the garbage.

Okay.  But I would look around a little.  I'm sure there are other
copies out there somewhere.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          29-Oct-99 20:44:27
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>[e-mail] (Jack Troughton)
>Warp is a paradise for the gentle hacker as well, with the inclusion
>of REXX as its scripting language. REXX is quite powerful.

Have you tried Regina yet? It's a free REXX interpreter for Win32, and
qute functional. I'm working with the current maintainer right now to
develop some REXX related things for Win32 (and also porting over my
Rexx Dialog library).

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

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                                29-Oct-99 20:59:21
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: [e-mail] (Mike Trettel)

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:47:05 -0400, David T. Johnson <[e-mail]>
wrote:
>
>
>Dale Ross wrote:
>>
>> "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>> news:[e-mail]...
>> >
>> >
>> > Dale Ross wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > It is very easy to know WHO is in the MVP program. Go to the
>> > > microsoft.public.* newsgroups. MVPs are very easy to spot.
>> >
>> > Are you suggesting that these so-called easy-to-spot MVPs are the ONLY
>> > MVPs?
>>
>> Yes I am suggesting that these easy to spot Microsft MVPs are the only
MVPs.
>
>Do you have any basis for this?  HOW do you know?

Careful, Dave.  You're putting hime in the position of disproving a
negative assertion, which is a logical impossibility.  The MVP program is
a bit spooky allright, but I don't think it's neccesary to assume that
every MVP is a "spook" or somehow under MS's control.  What I do think
that's interesting is the fact that MS would treat their own boosters in
this fashion.


 --
===========
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: Usenet: Twinco, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            29-Oct-99 21:02:15
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

"Illya Vaes" <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> >There is no list that you can go view.
> >If you want to compile a list, why not got to deja.com, use the keywords,
> >Microsoft and MVP and pull the names that come from the
microsoft.public.*
> >groups. You can spot an MVP one of two ways, some place it in their From
> >Line, and you will find it in their .sig.
>
> Wrong. You've admitted to being an MVP when replying to Joseph Coughlan:

Excuse me? Wrong. What is wrong?

> >>One would say some of the folks who frequented the OS/2 newsgroups when
MS
> >>was shipping NT vaporware and the crippled NT 3.1 are now in the MVP
> >>program.
> You:
> >No not too many of them are. In fact I cannot name a single one besides
> >myself.
>
> But nowhere in your From line (or any header line) or your signature (what
> signature, "Dale" ?) is there *any* mention of MVP.

It most certainly is. But not here. Being an MVP has NOTHING to do with this
echo. About the only place that I sign as an MVP is in the
microsoft.public.* newsgroups.

> Or should we assume that you use two signatures, one for MS groups and one
for
> advocacy? That would corroborate the secrecy of MVP-advocacy for MS.

Sorry I do not do advocacy any more. I've not posted in these groups for ~4
years now. I am simply addressing the MVP issues here.

> Either way, you misrepresent yourself (yourselves).
> Go away, liar(s).

This is exactly one of the reasons I dropped playing in these groups. Such
childish attitudes...

Dale


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RoadRunner - Carolina (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            29-Oct-99 20:59:06
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

"Mike Trettel" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> >> > Are you suggesting that these so-called easy-to-spot MVPs are the
ONLY
> >> > MVPs?
> >>
> >> Yes I am suggesting that these easy to spot Microsft MVPs are the only
MVPs.
> >
> >Do you have any basis for this?  HOW do you know?
>
> Careful, Dave.  You're putting hime in the position of disproving a
> negative assertion, which is a logical impossibility.  The MVP program is
> a bit spooky allright, but I don't think it's neccesary to assume that
> every MVP is a "spook" or somehow under MS's control.  What I do think
> that's interesting is the fact that MS would treat their own boosters in
> this fashion.

An MVP is NOT a booster. In fact I know several MVPs that would not consider
themselves even a slight fan of Microsoft.

Dale


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RoadRunner - Carolina (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                          29-Oct-99 21:00:02
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>[e-mail] (Mike Timbol)

>>Dave Tholen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
>>> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.

>>Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite clearly,
>>the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

>What you apparently don't realize is that the file is a self-extracting
>executable.  Such files are compressed using a standard archive format
>which is portable across platforms.  I used WinZip to unzip the file,
>Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Tholen doesn't even know how to list the contents of a
self-extracting ZIP! What a technically ignorant moron!

Obviously, Tholen knows absolutely nothing about computers. Of course,
he has demonstrated that he knows little about most other subjects as
well. An intelligent man, he certainly ISN'T

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            29-Oct-99 21:03:25
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> > Of course all MVPs have access to the list. Microsoft updates the list.
You
> > give me a name, I'll tell you which product they are an MVP for. Like I
> > said, I've seen no one here name an MVP other than myself.
>
> So is this list on a Microsoft server?  Can non-MVPs look at the list?

David you are going around in a circle now. I've already told you who can
and who cannot access the list. Final statement on that.

The PSS folks that head up the MVP program keep the list updated.
MVPs can access the list
Non-MVPs cannot access the list.

Dale


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RoadRunner - Carolina (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            29-Oct-99 21:07:11
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <[e-mail]>

"Illya Vaes" <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> >These "MVP Bucks" are then applied towards a purchase in the Microsoft
> >company store. You cannot use an "MVP buck" to pay your rent, you cannot
> >use it to buy food.
>
> But you can spend the money it saves you when buying that book on your
rent or
> food.> It's still payment, whether you like the term or not.

What money? There is no money. This "money" is about nothing more than
monoply money.

> >People come here and the Windows advocacy groups to argue about their
> >choice of OS. Debating these kinds of issues simply isn't in the game
plan
> >for an MVP. An MVP works the microsoft.public.* groups and that is it.
>
> Even if you were saying this in good faith, you cannot tell what's in the
> "game plan" of other individuals, and neither can you stop any MVP with a
name
> known to you from using some anonymous mailing account.

No I cannot. Now show ONE MVP that has done this. Evidence please.

> >Anything outside of those groups is not recognized by Microsoft.
>
> "Steve Barkto" wasn't "recognized by Microsoft" (initially) either.
> Hell, "Watergate" wasn't "recognized" (initially) by Nixon.
> So what?

Exactly SO?

> >Outside of those groups they are on their own.
>
> Which even if true doesn't necessarily stops them. In fact, didn't you
just
> state that anyone posting here was "on his own" anyway?

That is exactly right. Anyone that decides to post here is on their own.
They are not under any control from anyone but themselves to do so.

> >And yes you will find MVPs outside the microsoft.public groups. You will
> >find them in places like comp.os.ms-windows.misc for example. Microsoft
> >MVPs help users with problems using Microsoft software. That's what we
do.
>
> That's nice of those MVPs. It's sure a whole lot more than what all those
> Winvocates did/do in Windows groups, after urging people to leave OS/2.
> Helping people with problems? "Windows ain't got no problems, it's the
best"

And I suppose OS/2 doesn't have problems? I guess that no other OS in use or
applications in use have problems except Microsoft's. Yea right... Wake up
and walk outside your glass house before you throw rocks.

Dale


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RoadRunner - Carolina (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]               29-Oct-99 14:27:13
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:19:41 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:

>
>
>Kim Cheung wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:36:19 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
>>
>> >On current hardware, these things occur essentially instantaneosly with
>> >the applications I have implemented with it.
>>
>> Yep - because there shouldn't be any trouble doing these things with a
386/16
>> processor over ISA bus.    123 walked the dependency tree on the original
>> floppy based 4.77MHZ PC.
>
>ObjectVision for OS/2 v2.0 is a 32-bit application and required a 386
>minimum which would have run at 16 Mhz or more.

That's not the point.   Anyway.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            29-Oct-99 21:29:15
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:26:08, "David T. Johnson"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> Karel Jansens wrote:
> >
> > If you ever jump ship (May it never happen!), remember me before you
> > dump your ObjectVision/2 with the garbage.
>
> Okay.  But I would look around a little.  I'm sure there are other
> copies out there somewhere.

Yours is the first one I heard about. I didn't even know Borland ever
made an OS/2 version (If I had, I'd most certainly have a copy now).

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Oct-99 21:28:21
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: (1/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <[e-mail]>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------D4A1892225E22623F9A50B9A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dave Tholen wrote

-- snip --


> Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
> let's take a closer look at that file.  Here's the output from the
> LIST program in hexadecimal mode.  Notice the corresponding filename
> in the first line (you can also tell when I downloaded it):
>
> ] LIST       1   00%        08/10/99 23:06  JAVAINUF.EXE
> ] 000000  4D 5A 50 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 0F 00 FF FF 00 00  MZP     
> ] 000010  B8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 1A 00 00 00 00 00  ╕       @
> ] 000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> ] 000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00               

> ] 000040  BA 10 00 0E 1F B4 09 CD 21 B8 01 4C CD 21 90 90  ? - ?!╕
L?!É╔
> ] 000050  54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73  This program mus
> ] 000060  74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F  t be run under O
> ] 000070  53 2F 32 2E 0D 0A 24 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  S/2.
>
> (I did replace one tab character with a space to preserve the alignment
> of the columns on the right side.)
>
> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite clearly,
> the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

Yeah, we see it, Dave. Unfortunately, it doesn't prove anything, beyond the
fact that
the string exists, and perhaps that the executable must indeed be run under
OS/2. It
certainly doesn't prove that one needs OS/2 to extract the contents of the
archive.


> Yet Mike also clearly wrote:
>
>   ] Message-ID: <7umhkp$qg6$[e-mail]>
>   ]
> MT] >> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.
>   ] >
> DT] >Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>   ]
> MT] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>
> Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
> on an OS/2 system to boot!

This is categorically wrong, Dave. One can obtain the contents of the
JAVAINUF.EXE
archive without running OS/2. I have attached a JPEG file which clearly shows
WinZip
displaying the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.


> So, I must again ask the question:
>
> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

Mike never claimed that he was running the JDK.


> And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>
> ] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>
> Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
> requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
> running OS/2.  That's a keeper.

Wrong again. See the attachment. One can extract the contents of a
self-extracting
archive ***WITHOUT*** running the self-extraction.

Why do you refuse to accept this?

-- snip --

To anyone whose interested, the attachment is a screen capture from WinNT,
converted
from a BMP to a JPEG in OS/2 (using PMJPEG), and posted onto USENET using
Linux 2.2.9.



Curtis


--------------D4A1892225E22623F9A50B9A
Content-Type: image/jpeg;
 name="WinZipJava118.jpg"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="WinZipJava118.jpg"
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--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Oct-99 21:28:21
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: (2/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
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--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Oct-99 21:28:21
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: (3/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
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--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Oct-99 21:28:21
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: (4/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

M8cMULYXduYKUiSFBGhqECuNuUIeXa4HStGlHDlRFVW+SZa6erqGlJqTPE8DRyYHdEL96JQu
0qpGSpDEsWLs30AaNc94IuUlw454gqaqO4xVFbRUs4p6qkmiFOiy1CpGN6gKdmwkAkM5lKkg
HEl1hitdw47miq66n3WCGoadZnmkhbNaS0YdxtxjKqpVQfDHjoDfaNcxFkzd6i1+1ljotvZZ
/aBJsUFblatercoZkO3eRym/u0ZyfGPV8DGb3Lqk6JE8VbWwiKJy6RKlVKixoSB3FVQq9B0A
6Dw0Bo9GjRoA0aUcS3CstlmE1AYFqZKqlpkaeMui82eOIsVDKTgOTjI8NZ+o4lvgaotFKkFV
fKaqaNjBRApNCsUMjOEkqIwmDURL1lYnxAwTtA2+jS+xXP264ett15PJ7bSxVPK3btm9A23O
BnGcZwNMNAGjRo0BDV/3Of8ANt/A6y2tTV/3Of8ANt/A6y2tIFZCq9fWT+ab/WmmPsVfY7of
0ir/AJmXS68/WT+aP+tNMfYq+x3Q/pFX/My6tU9qKw9zMnxX/iWz/wCe0385rpy3SSUuYbZW
Sosjx71aIAlWKnGXB8QfNrmPFf8AiWz/AOe0385prxbVXaNLHSWitq6WWrudashpNpdkQyyH
CtnONgOApJGQPHDZ4iWRZvgKWWLl0Uan2PUrLnV1TXK32sU7SSxQTWOl2xRHBO4hikgVSBlu
q9D0z1lj4D4hlqnulBxDTM9Uu/tcEjR88N13dwYAY7WwMjr58ZORtViN+4zpYrogq6Sa6PBU
V00ZjrWmjpSTCzMofaFhQ9No9+OOo7vZq+vnttTQWazW6llqJIJJY4pZzTwxwxGNSAVRznMq
ALtxjPUYAOdKrOSvaxvKnS04tO7e7XXX4/pxuYaD2OeJqNw9Le4oWRDGjRzSIQmS23oOgzg4
9JPo6+ZfY14imikikvEEkbymZkeWQhpDnvkY8o9Ovj1Po6v6HiG6NxBdrdS0POrZqozR09fV
8pKeJKWjLpuRZO9vnHdUFTlzu+6se7tOy+2Jtc4tftV7aK7SKJ2i5fMJWM91lHRDhyyuy5UI
yuddSRlpxM6vsfcVR1klZHf0WqkXa04qJQ7DzAtjOOi//YGYo/Y14igiWKG8QJGkvORFlkUC
QZw4AHRui9fHqfR119k4tluHMS4Weuo5BLHGjR0dU8b792OskEbDG07iV2KGTvZOAwsV4qLv
2wVFB2RqeXl7ecHZf9yQYBWQDBIG5CroyO4OQ1JDTiYWP2PuKoKZaaG/olOjbkiWolVQQxYE
ADAO4KfyknzdfVf7H/E1whigmu9KaeFESODmSctdibAQpBAJAGT6Wb9bR+NamcWl6i0IlBdU
gqqKSG4uJdjVNNGvMURgKcVCsVDMDtZSSDnTzgiprK3gezVtwbdV1VKlRK/NMm9pBv3ZIGM7
s7QNq52r0A01JDJEo8EcK1fC6Vy1U0EvaChUxZ+13eOQPSPOfP8AlOt0aNVbu7sslbZBo0aN
QA0aNGgDUYghWoeoWJBO6KjyBRuZVJKgnxIBZiB5tx9OpNZTiSKahuVDcIai4iSWtpoud2ki
lp42ljQxtCGAcyBnVWKOQz5LIqqVAd1VitFdb4LfV2qhqKKDbyaaanR449o2rtUjAwCQMeA1
GvDdiVKJFstuCUDl6RRSpinYsGJj6dwlgDkY6jOlHKmv1Rea4VFxNujcUsNLRVJhapanMnMK
tuUxkyuY+hTPZ1JYo2NZQ19fPZuIal7jXLNY7VLVUKrVSKYZVnrVCzYOJ2QU8SNv5ikoxBYM
WYSdONDRtRzUZpYDTTb+bCYxsk3kl9y+B3FmJz45OfHVOThuxTWuK1y2W3Pb4X3xUjUqGJG6
9VTGAe83UDzn06SXo3S73WujtM06w2yJKeojim5ZqXkkhlljU5G2RYFAV8jrU9GQqx0koxdq
2Wtgegv8lroK2SD2ujuYStjZoKaRGacTgugLznBlb64gx3RsEHRp4Iaqnlp6iJJoJUKSRyKG
V1IwQQehBHm1XrLTbbhUUtRW2+lqZ6R99PJNCrtC2QcoSMqcqDkegejWNqLtca3gvgqaVa6s
mu3I7ZHQTLTzT5pJJTtffHs76Kxwy9AR1BwWfuihs3BtTdSXkpKVGii7dUgS9oErxciV8FVC
uEj5pZgerMxA3sBo+w0fI5HZYOTzefy+WNvM38zfj7rf3s+O7r46kkghmeJ5Ykd4X3xMyglG
2lcr6DtZhkeYkefXNbFNcbzw1QyNca7iSnpqq4QVj2qvWnmlmFQeTJuEqAR8vd3A+MSR4UgA
rcrLhXXLg7gSonFxq57i8L1Uduqeyy1BNFNIe8HjAG4BiNwHd/INAb6OCGF5XiiRHmffKyqA
XbaFy3pO1VGT5gB5tR0lDR2+IxUVLBTRnblIYwgO1Qi9B6FVVHoCgeA1z0XC9cPcSWp6gVUN
lZKuSWkrakzzU9NmkTe772UlJXeQszsFhZ+oxtD/AIIuNyuhv9RcleJzcgYKdwytBC1NA8aM
rE7XCsN4HTeXxoDTwQQ0tPFT08SQwRIEjjjUKqKBgAAdAAPNqTRo0Arg4cstJTxU1Ja6Wlp4
6gVIgp4hFGZQOjMq4DEYBGQcFVPioIsT2m21VBLQVFvpZqOVy8lPJCrRuxbeSVIwSW72fT18
dXNGgF9FYrRbIo4qC1UNJHHKZ0SCnRAshUoXAA6MVJXPjg48NFRY7XWdsFXQwVS1mwVC1Kc1
XCeQuGyAoOSFHQMWbGWJLDSDjC+JY7Hu7fBQVFZKtJT1U7qqQu+cyEv3TsQO+1iN2zaDlhoC
/JYrRN2Hm2qhf2vx2PdToezYxjl9O5javhjyR6NSR2m2w3SW6RW+lS4TJslq1hUSuvToz4yR
3V6E+YejWB7TNVexTauIYblcairhtEZFTBWkRU0yxEvPOAwMwV1G9WEh7uAhJYG/b6ip9tLV
cTWVTT119r6CdWqHMRgi7XsVYidiEciLvKoY4OSdzZA3ejRo0AvjsVoh7dyrVQp7YZ7Ztp0H
ac5zzOnfzubxz5R9OmGknFs81Pw9I0Erxu9RTxERMVeRXnRGjRh5LurFFbK7SwO5cbhlAKyW
gnRbpdaFqS6iKmtzymerJMETiIvzMPJkvIC8kkSo/vikJiMDfUVDR2yjjo6ClgpKaPOyGCMI
i5JJwo6DJJP69WNK7BVNcLWtc1xpa4VLl1ajdZIIx5PLjcDLgFTlj1LbjhRhFaaAp1lroa9J
0qaZHFQiRzeYyorFgjkdWTLNlT0IZgQQxBsCCFah6hYkE7oqPIFG5lUkqCfEgFmIHm3H06k0
aAVx8N2KG1y2uKy25LfM++WkWlQRO3TqyYwT3V6keYejUgsdrEsL9hgPIiSGBCmUhRGDqEXy
Uwyoe6BnYmfIXDDWBr6S6Ut6ktltqbqWmpWmnNVW7nuASanMhpzuxAwR5U6ckbpUK9F3IBto
qGjglWWKlgjkXmbXSMAjmMHkwf8AeYBj6SMnrqxrlNPcLjUX57JJbuI5aKCWpKUEdzVKqPbF
RMpeftALrmolOOa31xendG3pVpqYa2zUNVT1T1cE9PHJHUyKFaZWUEOQAoBIOcYHj4Dw0BHe
bNR362m316cymaWKV4yAQ/LkWQKwIIKkqAR5wTqOThuxTWuK1y2W3Pb4X3xUjUqGJG69VTGA
e83UDzn06aaNAU4LTbaURCnt9LCInDxiOFV2MI+UCMDoRH3M/c9PDpqxBBDS08VPTxJDBEgS
OONQqooGAAB0AA82pNGgDRo0aAhq/wC5z/m2/gdZbWpq/wC5z/m2/gdZbWkCshVevrJ/NH/W
mmPsVfY7of0ir/mZdLr19ZP5pv8AWmmPsVfY7of0ir/mZdWqe1FYe5mT4r/xLZ/89pv5zTK8
0dzusslPJaaWqpaeqqTDJHcbhASHkbO7kw7SfN4sB1wepyt4r/xLZ/8APab+c074pvt4stJa
o7PPFC9ZcqyOV5oDKqqrSyEkdMeQcncMAsfNkZ4iSjHNLiwUlGLk/BFw3w9Xrebe8dBbqKlo
q+StqgLhVTzu707wgkTxBuuV65x3TjJ1ubnZqK7co1SzrJFkJLTVMlPIoOMrvjZW2nCkrnBK
qSMgY4nRNduKeK4KKrulW8dbWPBNc6KrbklRT5anESvy1Y8h2PRvrkZOegbq1ZDNBc7Nw1bK
2e2UYoJ5RJTKjyAQtBGiZlVxtxKc9N2VXqOucac86ulZHTKEVTjNSu346Xz8votvwjZGBEVI
9KS4YNRVEtMy4jSParRspVNsUY2DCnYpxkA6k9y1j5/M9rYNvK5PIweRt2cvPK8jdy/e923d
s7udvTScX2ts3ENRa62We6ydlpRSQwQxxyTyu9WWJJKoG5UALEsqkodoUsF0wp+LaOqqqOni
o65nqN4kxED2dkk5ThsNltsndYx71XozFUZWOhkX7ZZqK0c00qztJLgPLU1MlRIwGcLvkZm2
jLELnALMQMk5joOHrZbH30UDwkOGGJ5CAoVlWMAtgRKHbbH5Ck5Cg9dJLV7JfDF2lnC3CCmh
ii54nnqYQjxblXcdrkx9XQbZQjd7GMhgHdDe4bhdKyhjpapOyuUMzxgI7Lt3DoSVI3KQHC7w
wZNy97QCC1cAx01yFZc6tKoRIq01NTCeKGHEsco2o80gUBoY9qpsUAEEMMBdXQ0VPbLfTUFH
Hy6amiWGFNxO1FACjJ6nAA8dZi88cUtFS1TNRXVKMdqhS5U6wFebBHK8gRXfduXkyAbk2ll8
6kEtOGLjV3WluFRVq67LlVU8QIQJy4pWiUpgk47nXd13b8YXaNAO9GjRoA0aNGgDRo0aANK5
uHrZUXQXGSBzPvWRlE8gikdcbXeINsdxhcMykjYmD3Vw01mLulyXii2QUN9ro2qpedJScunM
MdNEF5p6xbzuZo08vIM24ZCEaAZvw9bHs1JahA8dJRoiU3KnkjkhCLtXZIrB1O3K5ByQSDkE
5gk4RskqRI1I4SNNjqlRKoqFLFiJ8N7+CzOSJN2S7k53tmnNV1txrLxLDefayz0fLhaqEcZI
eMSNO6O4KBQWiQswbBilXap72s5W8R3+mpZmnrKqnnpaJqmjVaRSKo82cRmtyh7OjRxwkk8g
AvL1XYRGJN0bJbjbZreaf+zSyvOyh2BEjyGUurZyrbyWBBBU4IxgYqHhKzmnSIR1SOrs/aY6
6dKhiwAO6cOJGBCoMMxGEQfarhffrndmuVRDZncwUNOgrTHEJGVpZY+sYwd0scCzPswc8yLu
vuA0kp7/AHSraeA3C+JbKSqkga4Q2ndWs/Kp5I1kh5B2qebP3hEvSOPr174G2qrJbqu3w0D0
/Kp6fbyBTO0DQbRtHLaMhk7pK90jukjwJGpKC2UlsTZSI6JsC7TK7A95mLHcTl2Z2LP5TE5Y
nA1mLjfL1U+xKvEdBU0tHcDaBcJGamMqg8guQgLjad2MFtwGOobRxRdrnS1F9lo656ZLJaEu
SRJHGy1Lk1GUl3KTs94Udwoe83XwwIHk/DFqngSLkzw7JZplkpqqWGQNK5kkHMRg21nO4rnb
kL07oxbNrocUCrTIiW999IkfcWI8toxhRgY2Owx4dfiGlHElddqajoaqilSjj9sqanqIpoBJ
JLG9VHFlGD7UBUk9Qxww8hh0r3S/1y8c2S1ULIKDtDRXFyuSztTzSRxq3gCBFvcdCA8WOjHQ
D+qtdDXVCz1VMk7inlpcSd5TFIULqVPQg8tfEeb4zmSnoqeknq5oI9slXKJpzuJ3uEVAevh3
UUdPR6c6QcR8QVFsuEYpl3U1uiFfdTkDbTMSg8Rk9BNL3cn+zbMe+DS9uM6igv3FFBUwc5qa
WIWpN4XtDtFTgw5C9z32oi77ff8A0IcAbfRpRwpW1Fz4OsdfWScypqbfBNM+0Dc7RqWOB0GS
T4ab6ANGjRoA0aNK79cZrba2NGqSXCocU9FG4JVpn6KWAOSi9XfHUIjnzaAgfhGyPT0lP2R1
gpadKVY0qJVWSFBhY5QGAlQDPdk3DvN90czw8PWynuhuMcDife0iqZ5DFG7Z3OkRbYjnLZZV
BO98nvNnKzXe8/U9tPERu86VLWqGdYYqRDHUVJi3k1DlSI4SQAWBiCAsS/Vdtuhu1zkulvq5
K53gr7vW21qMxxiKJIe07XQhd+89nXO5mHffAHd2gbPRo0aAr1tFT3GjkpaqPfC+CQGKkEEE
MrDqrAgEMCCCAQQRqnTcO2mmp3hFEkwkSRJXqiZ5JVcKHDvIWZwQiAhieiKPBQB44nrai32G
WopZOXJzYYzIFDOiPKiOyKc7pArMVXDbm2gKxO05gXS+S2qeoprzspqG4CIz11MI6mVCkRUS
QiLJbe7KIQkTyAx7XXO6QDZW62Ulqp2hpEcB3Lu8sryySNgDLu5LMcAAEk4CgeAA1c1Tt0ld
NTtNXwpTvI+6OnU5aJMDCuwJDP4k7egztBbbva5oA0aNGgDSSPhGyRJKi0jlJE2Kr1ErCnUM
GAgy3vADKhAj24KIRjYuHesJXXC/0FynoKe41VdK1Pzapmolj7OObCHakXZmULFJM2MzFWSJ
SSW2uBoDwlZzTpEI6pHV2ftMddOlQxYAHdOHEjAhUGGYjCIPtVw3gghpaeKnp4khgiQJHHGo
VUUDAAA6AAebXNYuLaye5G0vdL5HTRS1AWths5atk2R0jgSRcghVzUydeUvRI+vUl+jUM3aL
fTT9pgquZEr8+nGI5cgHcgy3dPiOp6HxPjoCxo0vvN1Sy201r089T77FCkMG3e7ySLGoG5lX
ynHiRpRW8b0NutUlbV0k8EkNUKSemnqKaF4pCgkALPKsbZQq3ddj3vDIbAGn0ar0NbT3O301
fRycymqYlmhfaRuRgCpweoyCPHVjQBo0aNAQ1f8Ac5/zbfwOstrU1f8Ac5/zbfwOstrSBWQq
vP1k/mj/AK00x9ir7HdD+kVf8zLpdevrJ/NH/WmmPsVfY7of0ir/AJmXVqntRWHuZk+K/wDE
tn/z2m/nNXL9VS1NakJpLpTS2+rqmhqaG4W1GbmOwyOa5Ze6SPBT1Ofip8V/4ls/+e0385rR
3/iqu4ZpLbHb6WlqZrhcqqAJUSmMAiSRvEZPUAjG09WHh4HPESjGN5cWCkoxcnwhVwzbK2S9
2yent10eBLrPX1tdW1lHLl3pGix7w3p2dNvnJzre3SzC41FPVQ19VQVkCPGlTSiMty3Kl0Ik
R1wSiHOM90YIBIPJI79xVe+MFti3Ce119fLym5MKGmSDk5yG2cwvuiqCMsp7vTbuJHWZ7jRc
OUNFSVVRW1MgjEabYZKqolCAAuyxqWPiu5sYywzgsM405qS+lbHTKmlTjPMnm8fHz9+uSlJw
dTPULWC5XFbgiRBKwyI8iOhny4DIVywqZVIK7QCAqrtGJIuEqOGWhdayuxSytUMplGJ5mZ3M
jd3uMWkkJ5ewMHKMCmFEkXF9gqK/sUFxSWXfGhaNGaNTIqvHukA2qHDrsJIDk7VyQQJLxxPa
rDv7fNOOXEZ5eRSyz8mPr35OWrbFO1sFsA7Wx5JxoZBZuH0suyOK4V01NDEIKWlmdeXTRDGF
UKoLYCqA0hdgB0PebcQ8PpBdam4x3CuE020AF1YIgk3lBlSWUktjeW2B2EZjBOqdq4jNy4nq
bVHIksVNTvK0qU0ihm7TLDsyThSnJYHOeYSWUKFIOj0Bgavge43e5TU1ZUdksBlq5Vp4KpZS
zTxzRswDQKyMee79ZJFB7oUjBXZW23Q2qlengZ2R6iaoJcgndLK0rDoB03OcfFjx8dXNGgDR
o0aANGjRoA0aNGgDVOO3QxXmpuis/PqKeGndSRtCxtIykdM5zK2evmH67msZ7pbg/GVdbWra
Wko6WthplElpqJBIGiifBqRIIkdmkKqCM529CWAIDSfhSCSx261w3GuploZUnE8fKaSaRcnf
KHRldi55hJXO8BuhGdR1XCEdajLVXe4ymop+y1zHkg1sAZyI5MRgKAJJBmPY2G6kkAinxFxL
d6Cl4lqbTSUNTDZ6VWZqmR49swjklkGADvwhpyB3QeYw35BAOKOKKyy3CSGGShh5VKtRBBVI
TJdJCXBp6ch1xINijoJDmZO74BhI7SyQxUFXTRVVVHJVVD1L1SSATCQtuU7sYIUBUCsCNiKp
DL0NROFzDEzU98usFbLKZaitRoS85KoneQxmLoscYBCAjb49591fiLiOstlc9PRRwPHBSrLV
yyqcUvNnSOOVuozGqipkYZHSHqyAglJHx3NOGhW92CGCKolhe+yIWopWWOB1jVecArkTsPrr
fWHOOvcEGunsFDNwtLw4ivBb3ojQqsbZZIimzoWz1C+c5+POoLvwxTXiomlkq6qBKqnFLWxQ
lNtXAC2I33KSo98kGUKt3z16LhfVcVTNwjY7zEaW3JdEieWprMyQUKvEZMydUyCwWMEsvekX
/hMdNxg9ZwmtwpuRLUtVJRJOiMaZy9WaVZlOcMuRzOWHJAIBbqGID+stSXChWlqqieRVqo6o
P3QwMcyzIvRcbQVVfDJUdTnrqpXcI2K4XujvE9spfbClqBUCoECb5GCMih2K5IGQR16FEPm1
nKvjSsork1lr7tY7bUwyzI9yrIisEuyOmkCrEZlKsRVD/wARvrROO93W/FF+rLJQ2Z5Ky1Wu
SsqhBU1FbmWCD3iWQ4O6LPejCgkjx8M9NAXKnhGxXCvqa26WyluU8zgq1dAk3JUKq7I9y5VM
qWx907Hz6LbwtQ24xu01VWTx1CVKz1Uu5+atMtNuJAG4mNTnOerE+jGft3HUz3+226qalq6O
reoiS6UUZWCZkFOUdSXYKhaZ4fKfMiqAQSVDzhfiP3SNeZY49tNSXA01M5XBljEUTiTOSGVi
5ZWHQoVOgGdpt0Nns1Da6dnaCjp46eNpCCxVFCgnAAzgegauaNGgDRo0aANU7jabbeKdae6W
+lroFcOsdVCsqhsEZAYEZwT1+M6uaQcV372hpaD+2UND22q7N2yv6wwe9ySbmG5M55e0DcvV
weuMECunA9BBY6WyUtbXU1sipRRz0sTRhKuLru3godrNufc8exm3Ek9F23KfhimprolWKuqe
CKolqoKNinKhnk375FIXeSebL0Zio3nAGFwruvFdZbKGwrGlDW1dyqoFeWnc8nsrTRxtUJ6c
86LCbjgy+LhCTJY+JZr1faqniuNnZIKiogltqse1wLFI0fNY7zuDMqnaUTAkHeO3vgavRo0a
Ap3O3Q3WgakmZ0BdJEkjIDRyIwdHGQRlWVWwQQcYIIyNUKbhahiDvUTVVZVyPJJJVyy7JGd4
1iLjlhFRxGioGUKQM4OWYtPf7jNa7Tz6dUM8lRBTRmQEqjTTJEGIBBYKX3bcjOMZGchBNf8A
iKGGrRIbdO9sreRXVR95iMfJjm3lXk96QLLhn3SFdmRG+7CAP7BYqbh21rQUju8YcvllRBk/
cpGqog+JVUE5JyxYlpqnbqyaup2qJKR6aNn94WXIkaPAwzoQChJydp6gY3bWJVbmgDRo0aAN
IE4VQStLJd7rLMkRhpJXmXfSIWRiFYKC/WOPPNMm7Zg5DOGf6xnDfGa3SzT3yqutnmt8dEK2
ohoyxmtwK7+XKAz8w7Q4JwhzH0U7u6AwHCEcbiqhu9xiuhd2luK8kyyh1jVlZTGYwMQwjuoD
72OvVtzuhoqe2W+moKOPl01NEsMKbidqKAFGT1OAB46wsfHddJbrX7ZVNn4drKx68yvcG5sU
Rp6gRcke+IGchgdwbHcbC4Pd30BmaniaoRI5ygMiRuXVWx1AYgEjPnwM+gaAWcS2qovVmFFS
1HZpu1UswmGMoI545CVyrDdhDjIIzjPTVMcIRxuKqG73GK6F3aW4ryTLKHWNWVlMZjAxDCO6
gPvY69W3aPRoBXabMLPbaG309fVNTUaRxxrIIzmNIhGEJCA4yN+eh3efb3dMII2hp4onmed0
QK0sgUM5A8o7QBk+PQAegDUmjQBo0aNAQ1f9zn/Nt/A6y2tTV/3Of8238DrLa0gVkKr19ZP5
pv8AWmmPsVfY7of0ir/mZdLrz9ZP5o/600x9ir7HdD+kVf8AMy6tU9qKw9zMnxX/AIls/wDn
tN/OaYcQztWT08MUdzp57fWVjbn4bqqyKTmGRMjaVRhsdvHcDu6fGv4r/wAS2f8Az2m/nNZq
7WuhuF+vFVLTVIqI7rUwRRxS7VuMm53Eaud3LkAXxAIICjAcLhUVNRzVHaKtxb57a/u/CZVS
a2S/v6mp4Xt/ZL9aIaemuDl71UXGdzYZ6CCEPRvHgB8qO8B9t4t4a6JdrTWVVwpLlba2Clra
aKWAGppzPG0chjZu6rod2Ykwd2MbuhyCONU1jsVXfDVU8NVSUzX2S3yyyhZUjleRmjdV2ANu
BjCjDKu9WfcEG/tMlTZuFbPSQ1NZS26ggVKaBqqoCKAq4VdznqcL5znodc9OcJxvC/4q3+Xt
0/Jqr+ReeFWanrYnuTyvVXKjuDSyRLuzAKfoduAS3Z85AAG/oOnVJxdZ+Ia3tlNbIebUXa1L
b62qanj7MMc0AqDULJHgzOT3ZehXAJBDbI3W2rXpQNcKUVjuyJTmZeYzKodgFzkkKysR5gwP
gdKKDjexVFgt14rbrbrfBcEaSnFRWou5QfAkkDeAQHUZ2tlcnGTYkksPDPtHc7jWdr53bM9z
l7dmampn8cnP952/+TPnwH+l7320R1lVSPdaFamkiM9TC1QgeGMAEu65yq4IOT06jUHur4c9
r/bD2/tXYubyO09sj5fMxu2bs43Y648caAb6NK6K9Q195qKKn2SQR0VNWR1McgZZVmaUDGOm
MRZzk53fF1WU3HVofhenvVTUQRboqOSrgWoRmo+0lAnMJI2qN+cnHdBIHm0Bp9GlY4ksTVD0
63q3GdKhaV4xVJuWZiQsZGchyVYBfE7T6NNNAGjRo0AaNGjQBpJcrLXXKtRZLmntWKiGpanN
NmUPE6uoSUMAELRqSGRj1cBhldrvWUXi6abjKq4fgjs4enqEiKVF1MdTIpiSVnSARHcArn7Y
ZKHqNAXG4Z38D1fDrVeZqylninq+X5c0wYyS7M9Mu7NtBwM4GBqO+8MTXeormgr0p4LnRLQV
6PTmRmhBkxymDKEfE0nVg48nu9Dujv3F0tmivctPZ57jHaqVJ5HgmRQGKyuyOWI27VSNjjc2
JlO3GMyX3iea0VFcsFAlRBbKJa+vd6gxssJMmOUoVg74hk6MUHk97qdoFyCz1FLR3Hs9fsuF
ZVPVNVGEEZyBGrJnBURpHGcFSwUnKsdwpwWK9UYqKmlvVKtwq6gz1ZkoC1O55ccY2x8wOpCx
J/4hGWfIOV2SXziX2nroqOKk7TJJEpyJNojkknihhV+h2q7SMd3U4ifCsQQKcfFVyqK9rPT2
mlN6ieUTxyVzLTqqLA5KyiIsxxUxdDGOu/r3QWAaR2eot3D1vtdmr+ztQRRwxSVMImWRETZi
RQVJ6de6y94DzZU0xwxN7RPbWr0JNQtckgpyMVXaTUsxG7rEZNoCZDBQRvJO4SScS8+y2Sut
lJzpr1s7HFUyclRuhab3xlD7cIjeAbvYHgcinWcaw0vC8905dKKunqEpqimmrBGkTGqNMXaT
aSIt6yEOVGQh6A5AAI+FblT17Xinu1KL1K8pnlkoWanZXWBCFiEoZTimi6mQ9d/TqArCLhuG
mpOHKSnqHEFjdTHzAGaVVp5IACRgA4k3Zx5sY69F9NxRcq5KKKiorPV1dYk08LU92aSmMMTR
o55whzv3yAbQhGA3eBGDYqOJ5prRw/W2igSoe9uggjq6gwBFaB58sVV+u2PGAD1PjoCxeuG4
b5WxzT1DxolFUUo5QAdGkeF1lRj5Lo0IKnBwcHpjrPaLLDZpbiafYsFXUJLHDHGEWBVgihCA
DpjEWfNjOMdOqij40VuJqXh640iUtwmeohPKmaWPmxRwzBUbYpIMU2csFwUI65BLSx8QU9/n
vCUq+9224PQF8nvuiIX6EDGGZl8+duQcHQDfRo0aANGjRoA0rvNrmuIopqWpSnrKGo7RTvLE
ZY9xjeMh0DKSNsjeDDrg9QCDJc6i6Q8pLXboKuRsl2qarkRoBjpkI7FjnoAuMBskHAahJxLz
7LZK62UnOmvWzscVTJyVG6FpvfGUPtwiN4Bu9geByAFdT7HVvq6NBLV1SV5qI556mnqJoVkx
VNUsojSQADdJIEJLMm4HJIyWFLwxNT3SnkavR7fS1s9fTQCnIlE03N375NxDJ7/LgBFI7mWO
Dur0nFldcpngt1mSeekQtXRvV7CCJpoSsBKYkO6nlxvMQxsyRk7WA4khfjUcNxU7u60T1UtS
CNiMrRjlf8e2RWIOMBkPXd0EjvRo0aEC+82z22tppRNyZFlinikK7gskUiyJuXIyu5FyAQSM
gEHqFkHCrOKiWvuTyVdRUGqkNNEscInEccccixvv6osSsoZmXeSxGQmwo+ILkl5qqK80Nuoo
KWi7ZPUw3FpVhUsQu/fFGACElOQTjlnOMjNOl40rK+w2+6UnDlc3a6qaB6d8iSERytHhgFO2
Q7c4fbGpBDSL0LAO7BbKm0WtaWruD1sgctvbeQoP2qmR3cjz952OScELtVWmqduuMN1p2qaZ
XNMXxDMwAWdcDvp1yUJyATjdjIypVjc0AaNGo55Ghp5ZUhed0QssUZUM5A8kbiBk+HUgekjQ
EmshS8CxNBSUd0rO1UVvpRR0CQK9NIkYeJ1aSRZMtIDTxEMnLGQ3TqAHfD93a+Wntr0b0b9o
ngaCR1ZkMUzxdSuRnuZ6EgZwCfEoE46m7LR1EtqRUulPHUWsJVFjIrywxKJ+4OUd1TETt5mB
v8doDASUPBU9lWGW0XXbWRS1hElektUhjqJVkK7TKG3Dlxjduwe+xUs5I0dpt0Nns1Da6dna
Cjp46eNpCCxVFCgnAAzgegaUQX29VgqKalstK1wpKgwVYkrytOh5ccg2ycsuxKyp/wCGBlXy
Rhd7e03GG8WahulOrrBWU8dRGsgAYK6hgDgkZwfSdAXNGld/vUPD9p9sajZyFqIIpGkkEaxr
JMkZcsegCh936vEeOoK7ii2xWZq23VVLcp5aeeWgpqeoVmrmiUlki25LHIwdoOPRoB3o1HBP
DVU8VRTypNBKgeOSNgyupGQQR0II8+pNAGjRo0BDV/3Of8238DrLa1NX/c5/zbfwOstrSBWQ
qvX1k/mj/rTTH2Kvsd0P6RV/zMul16+sn803+tNMfYq+x3Q/pFX/ADMurVPaisPczJ8V/wCJ
bP8A57Tfzmo6Kgvdzu/EENNLXVlAl6eZ4KeuMYXbKwMRYttw4Pei8yjecExo8nFf+JbP/ntN
/OaUXWuulTfLzLBxNeqZaKuqEnpY5nZnUM7L2dcqpYKvWMkYC7wSu4NFenCdJqbtHa7Svbn/
ADbj7PZsqm1JWV/6i5BR3m+CsuVNBfJ4oa2UTVENxwtZCtWrbIlDDbIIU2AxhQSzguCCuuk1
lHWSVlqvNkpqaTkUctOtJVs9IBHKYmB+tsyleSBsKDyjkjbg8xgNZU8QNHRcYXaSBrtNQstT
USpHDNzHKq5EhO3aoCjKmQlFG3c5XtFDTdit9NSc+eo5ESx86dt0km0AbmPnY4yT6dcOGhSj
FunJu9vHHwn1xa23T8Le7fKsZOHg2aCnuCxpbo56m5W6pD08JiXk0wpsoF6lQDDLsTJA3jr1
Os5d7VdrLw8bFR0fthX13DdPZ5AkVQI43jSVAyyrC0Z3GU9JGj2hQSQGyvVtU7XcYbva6e40
yuKepTmQlwAXjPkvjPQMuGAOCARkA5A6SDnvGXCd+rqe5VX98WKKulR1r52eVXpZ444kpAvK
Vl5qLuU7m2Enq5GmFztnEbcS2u+e11C1a1VFD2WOrkaFI46et98ebk5XJqNuNhGQvXvdN9o0
BlOHOHrlZbvVVkppZErkBmVJWzCxnq52C93vgNUIgJ25AZsLgKVicCVlPZuGqSnNDHJZ7eqS
ImVSWoWekn6EL0V2p3y+Mjfu2scjWyjuMMt5qbWqvz6enhqHYgbSsjSKoHXOcxNnp5x4+avT
X+hqbBb70zPDSV6U7Rcxe8DOVWNSFzglnUegZ8cddAZit4LuVRbq2nSelDz0V6p1JdsBqyoW
WInu+AUd70Hwz463ejRoA0aNGgDRo0aANZy6Wi5V1aaaKC3R2+Wtpq2WqVmSfdC8b7WTaRIT
yVXeXXCsBtOzvaPSReIpJr3VW6mslxqEpKhKeerRoBEjMiSZw0ocgLIpOFPnxnQFOXhysm4C

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                               29-Oct-99 21:28:21
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 19:49:03
Subj: (5/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
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--------------D4A1892225E22623F9A50B9A--

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            29-Oct-99 18:48:11
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 21:24:01
Subj: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

IBM To Adopt Win 2000 Companywide
(10/28/99, 2:00 p.m. ET)
By Madeleine Acey, TechWeb
IBM is set to become one of the biggest early adopters of Windows 2000 and
plans to standardize its many desktops on the long-awaited Microsoft operating

system worldwide.

Big Blue's integrated solutions marketing manager Dick Sullivan told
journalists in London this week that Windows 2000 Professional would be the
company's desktop OS of choice across the enterprise when it becomes available

next year. The company will buy 300,000 copies, he said.

"We have a standard desktop across the corporation and ours will be Windows
2000, with Notes and Lotus Smartsuite," Sullivan said.

However IBM's confidence in Microsoft's new baby was not unwavering. Asked how

many service packs Win 2000 would require before it was stable and trusted,
Sullivan said "probably two."

"On the server side, people are going to be very cautious," he said.

Sullivan added that the client would be the first thing to roll out in big
numbers as there was a lot of pent-up demand from people who had been waiting
to upgrade from NT 4.0.

Win 2000 is a complex operating system -- not just the next version of NT, he
said. IBM is working to integrate the OS with its own applications, he said.

"Windows 2000 is going to be a very successful OS, so we want it to work right

for our customers for the applications they want to use," Sullivan said. "It's

not going to be a heterogeneous environment, they still have a lot to learn.
There's a long way to go for heterogeneous integration."

E-commerce -- specifically transaction applications -- would be some of the
crucial software packages to integrate, he said.

Microsoft Windows product marketing manager Nick McGrath said he was pleased
with the news of IBM's adoption of Win 2000.

"It's exciting to see that a company as diverse in its operations as IBM is
embracing Windows 2000 Professional across its desktops," McGrath said. "It's
a
clear endorsement of how Windows 2000 Professional is the best OS for
businesses of all sizes."

He said he isn't sure if IBM is the OS's biggest customer so far, but he looks

forward to more contracts of a similar size.

*******************************************************************************


Well folks, even the makers of OS/2 know a good thing. See you on the other
side...
--
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                            29-Oct-99 18:50:09
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 21:24:01
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>>
>> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>> >"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Their product is not technically "for OS/2", but it works "with OS/2".
>> >> >Technically, Win95 "works with" OS/2.  But they have given OS/2 users
>> >> >some ability to use their latest products, thankfully.
>> >> >
>> >> >I just found it amusing how their product's footprint went from about
>> >> >2.5MB when they had DOS and OS/2 executables, to a whopping 100MB or so
>> >> >when they went the Win9x path.  I'm sure it looks really pretty, but
>> >> >that's not an extra 97.5MB of filesystem support.  ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> >- Marty
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Please. I've used Partition Magic from 1 to 4 and no version takes up
100 megs.
>> >> At best,  you may be counting things like the MagicMover or BootMagic,
but
>> >> please stop trying to imply that the Windows version takes up such
resources
>> >> and offers nothing in return.
>> >
>> >How big is Partition Magic 4 then?  I remember trying it and finding it
>> >to be orders of magnitude bigger (100MB to my recollection, but I may be
>> >mistaken), with lots pretty animations, a few new filesystems gained
>> >full support (NTFS and Extended 2 to my recollection), and not much
>> >else.
>>
>> My powerquest install directory for Partition Magic, MagicMover,
Drivemapper
>> etc weighs in at 15.5 meg(and this includes patch executables). The PM exec
>> weighs in at 3.2 megs and this gives you Fat32 support, conversions to and
fro
>> various file systems, linux support, larger harddrive support, a batch mode
>> that does several changes at one, various diagonostics, in addition to some
>> pretty animations.
>>
>> You are very wrong.
>
>As all I have to doubt your statements is a fuzzy recollection, I will
>take your word on this.

I am honored. Facts, such as those at my command, are always better than fuzzy

recollection.

>> >> Such deception should be beneath you.
>> >
>> >It wasn't intended as deception.  It was what I recalled from looking at
>> >the product and trying it.
>>
>> I find it difficult to believe that you tried it based on your statements.
>
>I had, and ruled it out almost immediately for some reason.  I guess it
>was just the lack of an OS/2 native EXE.

You must rule out quite a bit of software, which is a shame. This version is
quite good. Except, actually, for its must reboot and use batch file mode,
this
has some issues.



>- Marty
>

--
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: [e-mail]                    29-Oct-99 23:31:19
  To: All                                               29-Oct-99 21:24:01
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: [e-mail] (Jason Bowen)

In article <[e-mail]>,
Jim Frost  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>As I remember it SideKick came after Turbo Pascal.  (Anyone remember Turbo
>Pascal for CP/M?)

Yep, first language I learned after basic.  Did it on a Apple II with a
Z80 card.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Colorado, Boulder (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+============================================================================+