I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...
Kelly Robinson
much easier for computer illiterates to use.
Now I'm A+ certified and well-versed with many operating systems and I
even know a bit about the Mac since I am unfortunate enough to have to
work with them at times.
But the Mac still astounds me with its leaps of illogical,
style-over-substance case design (how patronizing, I want to know the
innards not the exterior which means nothing), and I could go into
detail for days explaining why MacOS 9 is just as technically obtuse and
inefficient as MacOS 1.0 was...
Despite the amount of bitching I do against IBM (and the ocassional
missile aimed at OS/2 itself), OS/2 still has a a shitload more going
for it than the Crapintosh ever technically will and I still have to aim
another missile at IBM wondering how they couldn't get OS/2 to sell.
What really went wrong? IBM got their PC from 1980, a real piece of
shit motivated by their name and nothing more, to sell, so why not
OS/2? Did people decide that OS/2 was meant for PS/2 (which also came
out at a similar time) and nothing more? People used OS/2 with the ATM
boxes (and didn't know or care any better since OS/2 was not advertised
and people were only doing one task, hence the SIQ never blew up on
them.)
I genuinely feel sorry for the situation. IBM is still responsible for
most of it, but I despise seeing technologically superior things be
shoved on the wayside in favor of pure trash (anything from Apple.)
Apple is still having an orgasm over a pathetic case design. Sorry, but
a translucent blue case (inspired by a german brand iron) is nothing
when the OS is incredibly finicky and unstable. And with luck the
illiterates will see this and allow Apple to go bankrupt. They deserve
it.
Forrest Cameranesi
<is...@groovyshow.com> wrote:
[snip garbage]
How'd you get out of my killfile?
--
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
forrest [at] west [dot] net --- forrest [at] bungie [dot] org
http://www.west.net/~forrest/ --- http://myth.bungie.org/
ZnU
> Because, quite frankly, any PC OS (Unix/Linux excepted) is going to be
> much easier for computer illiterates to use.
[snip]
Yeah, yeah. We get the point. Look, Mac OS X is going to ship (no matter
how late it is) long before anything seriously challenges the Mac's #2
desktop OS spot. I suspect OS X will answer your complaints.
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do
not use a hammer.
--IBM maintenance manual, 1925
ZnU <z...@znu.dhs.org> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
Brian Lewis
"Kelly Robinson" <is...@groovyshow.com> wrote in message
news:383F53F2...@groovyshow.com...
> Because, quite frankly, any PC OS (Unix/Linux excepted) is going to be
> much easier for computer illiterates to use.
And you base this on?
>
> Now I'm A+ certified and well-versed with many operating systems and I
> even know a bit about the Mac since I am unfortunate enough to have to
> work with them at times.
If you aren't familiar with the MacOS, you aren't exactly "well-versed."
>
> But the Mac still astounds me with its leaps of illogical,
> style-over-substance case design (how patronizing, I want to know the
> innards not the exterior which means nothing), and I could go into
> detail for days explaining why MacOS 9 is just as technically obtuse and
> inefficient as MacOS 1.0 was...
Please enlighten us!
<snip>
> Apple is still having an orgasm over a pathetic case design. Sorry, but
> a translucent blue case (inspired by a german brand iron) is nothing
> when the OS is incredibly finicky and unstable. And with luck the
> illiterates will see this and allow Apple to go bankrupt. They deserve
> it.
Please illuminate us with examples of the finicky and unstable OS.
Steve White
> OS/2 still has a a shitload more going for it ...
Great sermon, preacher, thanks, now would you kindly get on that mule
and get on down the road? Lots of parishes out there haven't had the
benefit of your speechifyin'.
steve
Jeffrey W Ryan
> Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 21:45:54 -0600
> Subject: I wish Kinkos would use OS/2...
>
> And with luck the
> illiterates will see this and allow Apple to go bankrupt. They deserve
> it.
Not anytime soon my dear...Today Apple closed at 95.06, where as in August
of 1998, Apple's stock was around the low 30's. Oh yes, we deserve this
one:)
Jeffrey W. Ryan
Loren Petrich
>much easier for computer illiterates to use.
OS/2 may well be a good OS, but between a horrid first version and
M$'s later war against it, it could never get off the ground. It looks to
me like a better version of Windoze, but that's about it.
>But the Mac still astounds me with its leaps of illogical,
>style-over-substance case design (how patronizing, I want to know the
>innards not the exterior which means nothing), and I could go into
>detail for days explaining why MacOS 9 is just as technically obtuse and
>inefficient as MacOS 1.0 was...
We Macoids are all eyes. Go ahead. I'll list some differences:
MacOS 1: Motorola 68000
MacOS 9: PowerPC with 68K emulation
MacOS 1: 24-bit memory space
MacOS 9: 32-bit memory space
MacOS 1: floppies only
MacOS 9: SCSI, IDE, USB, FireWire, ATA CD-ROM
MacOS 1: No networking
MacOS 9: AppleTalk and TCP/IP directly supported; others supportable
MacOS 1: Single-tasking
MacOS 9: Cooperative multitasking, partitioned memory
[Not what it could be, I will concede, but MacOS X will fix that]
MacOS 1: 1-bit color
MacOS 9: 24-bit color
MacOS 1: Fake directory hierarchy (MFS)
MacOS 9: True directory hierarchy (HFS, HFS+)
>Despite the amount of bitching I do against IBM (and the ocassional
>missile aimed at OS/2 itself), OS/2 still has a a shitload more going
>for it than the Crapintosh ever technically will and I still have to aim
>another missile at IBM wondering how they couldn't get OS/2 to sell.
The one-two punch mentioned earlier does seem to account for that.
>I genuinely feel sorry for the situation. IBM is still responsible for
>most of it, but I despise seeing technologically superior things be
>shoved on the wayside in favor of pure trash (anything from Apple.)
Such as MacOS X Server?
That's basically an update of NeXTStep.
>Apple is still having an orgasm over a pathetic case design. Sorry, but
>a translucent blue case (inspired by a german brand iron) is nothing
>when the OS is incredibly finicky and unstable. And with luck the
>illiterates will see this and allow Apple to go bankrupt. They deserve
>it.
Laugh all you want, but when you start to see PeeCees with fancy
case designs, don't come crying to me.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Kim Cheung
>In article <383F53F2...@groovyshow.com>,
>Kelly Robinson <is...@groovyshow.com> wrote:
>>Because, quite frankly, any PC OS (Unix/Linux excepted) is going to be
>>much easier for computer illiterates to use.
>
> OS/2 may well be a good OS, but between a horrid first version and
>M$'s later war against it, it could never get off the ground. It looks to
>me like a better version of Windoze, but that's about it.
I don't know why Mr. Robinson cross-posts his attack on Mac to the OS/2
forum. Personally, I have nothing against the Mac but I do think that this
thread should stay with the mac.advocacy group.
Kelly Robinson is not known to be a support of OS/2. He's only trying to
start a frame war between Mac users and OS/2 users.
rro...@attglobal.net
A big company with lots of resources and an excellent product. I always
felt that IBM and Microsoft may have swung a deal whereby IBM would not
compete against Microsoft in PC OSes in exchange for some other consideration.
This has always been my suspicion. IBM just didn't seem to really try very hard
shortly after Warp 3 Connect. I always heard that IBM didn't see any money in
the kitchentop PC OS market but if that was the case then why didn't they just
drop it cold turkey as they do with all their other products which seem to have
no future. Instead it seems like they just went through the motions with no intent of making OS/2 a
success.
In <383F53F2...@groovyshow.com>, Kelly Robinson <is...@groovyshow.com> writes:
>Because, quite frankly, any PC OS (Unix/Linux excepted) is going to be
>much easier for computer illiterates to use.
>
>even know a bit about the Mac since I am unfortunate enough to have to
>work with them at times.
>
>style-over-substance case design (how patronizing, I want to know the
>innards not the exterior which means nothing), and I could go into
>detail for days explaining why MacOS 9 is just as technically obtuse and
>inefficient as MacOS 1.0 was...
>
>missile aimed at OS/2 itself), OS/2 still has a a shitload more going
>for it than the Crapintosh ever technically will and I still have to aim
>another missile at IBM wondering how they couldn't get OS/2 to sell.
>shit motivated by their name and nothing more, to sell, so why not
>OS/2? Did people decide that OS/2 was meant for PS/2 (which also came
>out at a similar time) and nothing more? People used OS/2 with the ATM
>boxes (and didn't know or care any better since OS/2 was not advertised
>and people were only doing one task, hence the SIQ never blew up on
>them.)
>
>most of it, but I despise seeing technologically superior things be
>shoved on the wayside in favor of pure trash (anything from Apple.)
>
Mike Trettel
You'll have to excuse Kelly, because this is his usual style of brain
fart. Lot's of preaching, letting what few OS/2 users are left just how
stoopid we'all are, followed up with a lecture or two on the glories of
Windows NT, BeOS, Linux, or whatever has turned his head this week. He
also likes to hook his lectures into the evils of IBM, along with a little
revisionist history that usually gets corrected by those with better
knowledge. This is a first though, I really can't recall a cross post
between cooa and coma that didn't involve Dave Tholen and/or Eric Bennett.
Kelly's usually a troll, pure and simple, but he is occasiionally
entertaining.
--
===========
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.
Loren Petrich
Mike Trettel <Y'all have to fix this@nowhere> wrote:
... This is a first though, I really can't recall a cross post
>between cooa and coma that didn't involve Dave Tholen and/or Eric Bennett.
What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
And as to OS/2, I wonder if anyone has written a
Linux-compatibility layer. And I wonder if anyone has thought of
petitioning IBM to create an OS/2 compatibility layer for Linux, or at
least a port of the Workspace Shell.
I mention Linux because that seems to be succeeding where OS/2
has failed. I don't mean to pick on you OS/2 lovers out there, but IBM
seems to be content to let it slowly go the way of the Amiga.
Christopher J Houle
Are you an idiot ? Regardless of how you feel about the macintosh ( and
most of us dont give a damn), apple continues to sell their product
consistently. You'll probably find that OSX will fix many of the
shortcomings of the OS.
And let me remind you that OS/2 shortcomings, and there are many will never
be fixed. The products dead. IBM's bailed, you should too. Save your money,
don't give it to IBM. If you OS/2 users really insist on throwing it away
then send it to me. Ill give you my address.
Bob Germer
Christopher J Houle <cjh...@mindspring.com> said:
> And let me remind you that OS/2 shortcomings, and there are many will
> never be fixed. The products dead. IBM's bailed, you should too. Save
> your money, don't give it to IBM. If you OS/2 users really insist on
> throwing it away then send it to me. Ill give you my address.
You really are a hole, an asshole.
IBM continues to issue updates and new features for Warp and has extended
its commitment to do so for four more years. IBM has just released a new
version of the Warp Server which is selling very well.
Haven't you heard that Bill's not paying you lemmings to spread lies
anymore?
Have your mommy explain what FixPacks and Subscriptions are if you can
find the test tube which spawned you.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bo...@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Germer
rro...@attglobal.net said:
> This has always been my suspicion. IBM just didn't seem to really try
> very hard shortly after Warp 3 Connect. I always heard that IBM didn't
> see any money in the kitchentop PC OS market but if that was the case
> then why didn't they just drop it cold turkey as they do with all their
> other products which seem to have no future. Instead it seems like they
> just went through the motions with no intent of making OS/2 a success.
IBM continues to develop and refine Warp for professional users. IBM
decided that the idiots like jglatt, mccoy, etal were not worth the cost
of the handholding they required to be able to run an optomized business
tool. IBM has no interest in games on the PC since IBM rightly regards the
PC as a BUSINESS tool.
You obviously have no knowledge of the software subscription services, the
technical support services, etc. IBM offers to OS/2users.
Idiot savants who will pay $40 or more several times a year for the latest
games that have a half-life of something less than a couple of months were
unwilling to pay for technical support when the screwed up their
Presentation Manager screen.
Simpletons who buy several joystick type devices at costs of upwards of
$30 each year to keep up with the latest games cannot understand that $100
a year to keep their OS current is cheap.
Mental midgets who complain that $100 a year is too much for added
features, new device drivers, new capabilities, etc. don't mind paying
just about as much to M$ for new versions of Windows every couple of years
when one considers that one also has to upgrade OfficeSour each time for
an additional $100 or so.
IBM made the right decision when it decided to limit marketing of OS/2 to
professionals.
Karel Jansens
wrote:
> In article <slrn8411bp...@ss5.fred.net>,
> Mike Trettel <Y'all have to fix this@nowhere> wrote:
>
> .... This is a first though, I really can't recall a cross post
> >between cooa and coma that didn't involve Dave Tholen and/or Eric Bennett.
>
> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>
You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him,
because it's obvious that you should comply to the opinion those
people have of Dave Tholen. Whatever you do, *don't* tell them you
want to find out for yourself, and *never* let it become public
knowledge that you've had an interesting and entertaining dialog with
Dave Tholen. It may not be nice to Dave, but it will make your
net-life a lot easier...
> And as to OS/2, I wonder if anyone has written a
> Linux-compatibility layer. And I wonder if anyone has thought of
> petitioning IBM to create an OS/2 compatibility layer for Linux, or at
> least a port of the Workspace Shell.
>
There's XFreeOS/2, which will let you run (recompiled) X-programs in
OS/2. Not (yet) in a window though, XOS/2 takes over your desktop full
screen. IIRC, information can be exchanged with native OS/2 apps.
The EMX libraries make it relatively simple (for those who program,
that is) to recompile certain X programs for the WPS. I have the
Ghostscript/Ghostview combo nicely running on my system.
The OS/2 Netlabs have a project called "Everblue", aimed at a more
seamless integration of X and WPS ( http://www.netlabs.org/everblue/
). They recently released the first public beta (more a showcase than
a useful tool, but amazing given the timeframe they managed to get it
out in).
The other way'round, I can only think of the DFM-project, which wants
to give some WPS-funtionality to X-cum-windowmanager (
http://dfm.masslinux.com/ ). It looks great, but I haven't tried it
myself yet.
> I mention Linux because that seems to be succeeding where OS/2
> has failed. I don't mean to pick on you OS/2 lovers out there, but IBM
> seems to be content to let it slowly go the way of the Amiga.
>
You're not offending us. We've been hearing that story on a _very_
regular basis for the last... oh, say eight years or so. We get used
to it.
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
Microsoft MVP -- Not!
Loren Petrich
Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 04:51:56, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:
>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...
Is he that much of a jerk?
[On integrating X-windows and OS/2...]
>The other way'round, I can only think of the DFM-project, which wants
>to give some WPS-funtionality to X-cum-windowmanager (
>http://dfm.masslinux.com/ ). It looks great, but I haven't tried it
>myself yet.
Interesting.
Loren Petrich
Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote:
>IBM continues to develop and refine Warp for professional users. IBM
>decided that the idiots like jglatt, mccoy, etal were not worth the cost
>of the handholding they required to be able to run an optomized business
>tool. IBM has no interest in games on the PC since IBM rightly regards the
>PC as a BUSINESS tool. ...
>IBM made the right decision when it decided to limit marketing of OS/2 to
>professionals.
That's all well and good, but looking from the outside, it's not
clear what the real advantages of OS/2 might be; what does it have that
Linux, for example, does not have? A better GUI, perhaps, and stuff like
the Workplace Shell.
And is it fair to say that OS/2 is what Windoze ought to have been?
This makes me wonder if anyone has tried to port WINE to OS/2 in
order to get Win32 support.
Loren Petrich
Christopher J Houle <cjh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
[Attacks on the MacOS]
>Are you an idiot ? Regardless of how you feel about the macintosh ( and
>most of us dont give a damn), apple continues to sell their product
>consistently. You'll probably find that OSX will fix many of the
>shortcomings of the OS.
And improve it. The MacOS's improvements over the past few years
have mainly been in improving stability and in the bells-and-whistles
department, but Apple has also released its long-promised MacOS X Server,
and its mass-market edition seems to be coming along very well
(www.xappeal.org, www.macosrumors.com). At least Apple is not letting the
MacOS go the way of OS/2 and the Amiga, though it might have seemed to
start that a few years ago.
>And let me remind you that OS/2 shortcomings, and there are many will never
>be fixed. The products dead. ...
That may be an overstatement, but IBM does not seem to be taking
OS/2 anywhere, and it's not clear how much more it has to offer than
(say) Linux.
Christopher J Houle
> You really are a hole, an asshole.
Looks like ive struck a nerve, eh booby. You may feel real tough calling me
an asshole online, but I doubt you'd be saying it to me face to face. But,
hey, if makes you feel tough and your dick somehow seem bigger than by all
means keep right on blasting me. Your too easy.
IBM continues to issue updates and new features for Warp
As for OS/2, let IBM's commitment to the future of the product speak for
itself.
IBM has just released a new version of the Warp Server
Ask yourself just what in the hell a new server version of the OS is good for
back at home on your desktop. Smarten up booby. The phoenix will not arise
from the ashes. IBM's not going to ever support a new client version, the
fixpacks will end, you will (foolishly) pay for subscriptions/updates to an
everbecoming obsolete product. Its inevitable, it cant be avoided. Its only a
question of when. IBM doesn't want you boob. You've got your head shoved so
far up your ass you dont whether to shit or blind.
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ
Question:
If two people from Mt Holley, NJ move to NYC and get a divorce are they still
brother and sister ?
LP
ZnU <z...@znu.dhs.org> wrote in message
news:znu-0132D9.0...@news5.bellatlantic.net...
>
> > Because, quite frankly, any PC OS (Unix/Linux excepted) is going to be
> > much easier for computer illiterates to use.
>
>
> Yeah, yeah. We get the point. Look, Mac OS X is going to ship (no matter
> how late it is) long before anything seriously challenges the Mac's #2
> desktop OS spot. I suspect OS X will answer your complaints.
Where do you get your numbers? *EVERTHING* I have seen place not only
Win98, but WIn95, NT4.0 as well
as Win3.11 WfWG installed and running OS's before the MacOS.
Now, with time.. MacOS will obviously superceed Win3.11.. but I don't see it
surpassing Win98, Win95 or NT anytime soon..
George Graves
>Because, quite frankly, any PC OS (Unix/Linux excepted) is going to be
>much easier for computer illiterates to use.
>
>Now I'm A+ certified and well-versed with many operating systems and I
>even know a bit about the Mac since I am unfortunate enough to have to
>work with them at times.
You could have fooled us. Most of stuff you mentioned in your other
thread: Option -O to eject disks, a reset key on the keyboard, multiple
instances of applications, all of these point toward someone who has never
used a Mac, and basically has NO IDEA what he/she is doing with it. Of
course MacOS is going to seem "lame" to someone who doesn't know how to
drive it, just as it would seem lame to someone who approached it with a
number of preconceptions about how it "should" work based on the knowledge
of how other OSes work (you seem to fall in both categories). The Mac user
who approaches Windows, or Linux expecting these OSes to work just like a
Mac are going to complain that these systems are no good because they
can't figure out how to do anything with them. You don't know anything
about the Macintosh OS, and apparently aren't willing to learn. So you
come here and show your ignorance by complaing that the Mac doesn't work
the way you want it to because you are invoking commands and operations
that even a Mac-using child knows the Mac wasn't designed to support.
Option-O for instance, does NOTHING in the Mac finder, and in most
applications, option is a gateway to the extended font character access.
Option-O for in this case, yields Ø (an O with a / through it). Macs don't
do multiple instances of applications, and never have. You open a new
window, not another app instance.
>But the Mac still astounds me with its leaps of illogical,
>style-over-substance case design (how patronizing, I want to know the
>innards not the exterior which means nothing), and I could go into
>detail for days explaining why MacOS 9 is just as technically obtuse and
>inefficient as MacOS 1.0 was...
Yes, you could rail for days about something that you don't have the first
CLUE about, but all it does is show YOUR ignorance, it reflects NOT AT ALL
on the MacOS.
>Despite the amount of bitching I do against IBM (and the ocassional
>missile aimed at OS/2 itself), OS/2 still has a a shitload more going
>for it than the Crapintosh ever technically will and I still have to aim
>another missile at IBM wondering how they couldn't get OS/2 to sell.
Well, if you knew the Mac 1/10th as well as you claim to know OS/2, you
would see that they have much in common. But OS/2 is obsolete. It is not
supported anymore by third parties and it will only run 16-bit Windows
apps, which must be getting pretty few and far between as well. So join
your Atari comrades, your Amiga comrades, and your NeXT comrades and deal
with it. You have Windows or MacOS, pick one.
>What really went wrong?
Microsoft.
>IBM got their PC from 1980, a real piece of
>shit motivated by their name and nothing more, to sell, so why not
>OS/2? Did people decide that OS/2 was meant for PS/2 (which also came
>out at a similar time) and nothing more? People used OS/2 with the ATM
>boxes (and didn't know or care any better since OS/2 was not advertised
>and people were only doing one task, hence the SIQ never blew up on
>them.)
>
>I genuinely feel sorry for the situation. IBM is still responsible for
>most of it, but I despise seeing technologically superior things be
>shoved on the wayside in favor of pure trash (anything from Apple.)
>Apple is still having an orgasm over a pathetic case design. Sorry, but
>a translucent blue case (inspired by a german brand iron) is nothing
>when the OS is incredibly finicky and unstable. And with luck the
>illiterates will see this and allow Apple to go bankrupt. They deserve
>it.
Why don't you try to LEARN something about the Mac before you condemn it?
I put it to you that you haven't a clue about how the Mac system works,
and therefore have no credibility in you criticisms of it. Go play with
your OS/2.
--
George Graves
Jack Troughton
wrote:
€In article <38414a9e$5$obot$mr2...@news.pics.com>,
€Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote:
€
€>IBM continues to develop and refine Warp for professional users. IBM
€>decided that the idiots like jglatt, mccoy, etal were not worth the cost
€>of the handholding they required to be able to run an optomized business
€>tool. IBM has no interest in games on the PC since IBM rightly regards the
€>PC as a BUSINESS tool. ...
€
€>IBM made the right decision when it decided to limit marketing of OS/2 to
€>professionals.
€
€ That's all well and good, but looking from the outside, it's not
€clear what the real advantages of OS/2 might be; what does it have that
€Linux, for example, does not have? A better GUI, perhaps, and stuff like
€the Workplace Shell.
€
€ And is it fair to say that OS/2 is what Windoze ought to have been?
€
€ This makes me wonder if anyone has tried to port WINE to OS/2 in
€order to get Win32 support.
It's ongoing; started about six months or so ago. However, they're
taking a slightly different approach. See http://www.netlabs.org/odin
for details...
Jack Troughton ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
MontrÇal PQ Canada
Karel Jansens
wrote:
> In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-iCnL08dE2LI6@localhost>,
> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 04:51:56, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
> >wrote:
>
> >> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
> >You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...
>
> Is he that much of a jerk?
>
He hasn't been to me once. Again, you will be warned that my opinion
of Dave Tholen is insignificant, biased and probably just totally
wrong.
Oh, and I'm a clueless newbie too.
> [On integrating X-windows and OS/2...]
>
> >The other way'round, I can only think of the DFM-project, which wants
> >to give some WPS-funtionality to X-cum-windowmanager (
> >http://dfm.masslinux.com/ ). It looks great, but I haven't tried it
> >myself yet.
>
> Interesting.
It sure looks it. IMO, it's not really ready for prime time. Then
again, it's a voluntary individual project: imagine what it could be
with a little more support. The gripping hand: if I ever decide it's
time to leave OS/2, there's already a backup in the wings.
Mark Schlegel
> > Mike Trettel <Y'all have to fix this@nowhere> wrote:
> >
> > .... This is a first though, I really can't recall a cross post
> > >between cooa and coma that didn't involve Dave Tholen and/or Eric Bennett.
> >
> >
> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him,
> people have of Dave Tholen. Whatever you do, *don't* tell them you
> want to find out for yourself, and *never* let it become public
> knowledge that you've had an interesting and entertaining dialog with
> Dave Tholen. It may not be nice to Dave, but it will make your
> net-life a lot easier...
>
> > And as to OS/2, I wonder if anyone has written a
> > Linux-compatibility layer. And I wonder if anyone has thought of
> > petitioning IBM to create an OS/2 compatibility layer for Linux, or at
> > least a port of the Workspace Shell.
> >
> There's XFreeOS/2, which will let you run (recompiled) X-programs in
> OS/2. Not (yet) in a window though, XOS/2 takes over your desktop full
> screen. IIRC, information can be exchanged with native OS/2 apps.
Not exactly true any more, you can run Xfreeos/2 in a window via
VNC server, see:
http://www.sra.co.jp/people/akira/os2/xvnc/index.html
Mark
... cut ...
Karel Jansens
wrote:
> In article <38414a9e$5$obot$mr2...@news.pics.com>,
> Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote:
>
> >IBM continues to develop and refine Warp for professional users. IBM
> >decided that the idiots like jglatt, mccoy, etal were not worth the cost
> >of the handholding they required to be able to run an optomized business
> >tool. IBM has no interest in games on the PC since IBM rightly regards the
> >PC as a BUSINESS tool. ...
>
> >IBM made the right decision when it decided to limit marketing of OS/2 to
> >professionals.
>
> That's all well and good, but looking from the outside, it's not
> clear what the real advantages of OS/2 might be; what does it have that
> Linux, for example, does not have? A better GUI, perhaps, and stuff like
> the Workplace Shell.
>
This is a very interesting question. For me, a large part of the
answer would be: invested time and money. I chose OS/2 over Windows at
a time when Windows's uptime could be measured in minutes and hours,
and OS/2's in weeks to months. There was no Linux to speak of at that
time (it was there, but with kernel version numbers starting with
0.9.x, no distributions and *really* crappy hardware support, it
wasn't exactly an alternative for a business solution).
Since that time, Linux has grown enormeously (spoken in a positive
way), Windows now has uptimes that can sometimes actually reach more
than one day <evil grin>, and OS/2... well, it simply still does the
job. I don't really need much more than the ability to process some
words, crunch my numbers and merrily (cluelessly to some) bob around
on the digital oceans. I don't play many games (and I stink at the
ones that I do play) and I really hate to have to learn my
wordprocessor overnew every six months (WP6 for DOS is still my
favourite). The so-called "dearth of applications" for OS/2 isn't that
important to me: the ones I have I got in the era when there were
plenty developers for OS/2 and I could choose. They work perfectly, so
why complain that I can't find new ones?
One positive thing (other than the robustness) that keeps me with Warp
is the WPS. It is a very powerful, intuitive and easy to learn OOUI.
In fact, it is AFAIK at the moment the only OOUI in existence. I've
tried Windows GUI's in just about every incarnation, I have oodles of
Linux windowmanagers, KDE and Gnome, but none of them even comes close
(KDE has some potential, but they seem to have decided to focus on
glitz and purdy pictures instead of power).
> And is it fair to say that OS/2 is what Windoze ought to have been?
>
That depends. For frustrated Windows users, maybe. But for Microsoft,
that now has a vast market of gullible money-spenders, who knows? It's
in their interest to make Windows just crappy enough, and have people
believe that it is everybody's but Microsoft's fault. It's called good
marketing, and there are people in this newsgroup who will actually
praise Microsoft for doing such a thing.
The thing to remember is that some of these people are calling *me*
clueless...
> This makes me wonder if anyone has tried to port WINE to OS/2 in
> order to get Win32 support.
>
See Project Odin at the aforementioned Netlabs site.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Karel Jansens
Loren Petrich
In article <gmgraves-281...@oak-pm3-35-163.dialup.slip.net>,
George Graves <gmgr...@slip.net> wrote:
[to an OS/2-loving Mac attacker:]
>Well, if you knew the Mac 1/10th as well as you claim to know OS/2, you
>would see that they have much in common. But OS/2 is obsolete. It is not
>supported anymore by third parties and it will only run 16-bit Windows
>apps, which must be getting pretty few and far between as well. So join
>your Atari comrades, your Amiga comrades, and your NeXT comrades and deal
>with it. You have Windows or MacOS, pick one.
Even though OS/2 seems to be going the way of the Amiga, I would
not want to pick on OS/2 advocates too much; remember that the OS/2 guys
and us Macoids share a common enemy: Micro$oft.
And there is now an up-and-coming third choice: Linux. It is
developed and supported by a whole community, so it is not vulnerable to
the whims of a single company -- whether it be IBM or Apple or Commodore
or whatever. However, its GUI's still have a way to go.
As to NeXT, it is being reborn as MacOS X.
>Why don't you try to LEARN something about the Mac before you condemn it?
>I put it to you that you haven't a clue about how the Mac system works,
>and therefore have no credibility in you criticisms of it. Go play with
>your OS/2.
I agree -- and I think that he ought to recognize who the *real*
enemy is.
ZnU
<LPNO...@iroadrunner.net> wrote:
> ZnU <z...@znu.dhs.org> wrote in message
> news:znu-0132D9.0...@news5.bellatlantic.net...
> > In article <383F53F2...@groovyshow.com>, Kelly Robinson
> > <is...@groovyshow.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Because, quite frankly, any PC OS (Unix/Linux excepted) is going to
> > > be
> > > much easier for computer illiterates to use.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Yeah, yeah. We get the point. Look, Mac OS X is going to ship (no
> > matter
> > how late it is) long before anything seriously challenges the Mac's #2
> > desktop OS spot. I suspect OS X will answer your complaints.
>
> Where do you get your numbers? *EVERTHING* I have seen place not only
> Win98, but WIn95, NT4.0 as well
> as Win3.11 WfWG installed and running OS's before the MacOS.
>
> Now, with time.. MacOS will obviously superceed Win3.11.. but I don't see
> it
> surpassing Win98, Win95 or NT anytime soon..
I thought it would be rather obvious that I was talking about platforms,
not specific OSes.
Mike Trettel
>In article <slrn8411bp...@ss5.fred.net>,
>Mike Trettel <Y'all have to fix this@nowhere> wrote:
>
>... This is a first though, I really can't recall a cross post
>>between cooa and coma that didn't involve Dave Tholen and/or Eric Bennett.
>
> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
Once a jerk, always a jerk. Dave is always the first person in my
killfile whenver I try out a new newsreader.
>
> And as to OS/2, I wonder if anyone has written a
>Linux-compatibility layer. And I wonder if anyone has thought of
>petitioning IBM to create an OS/2 compatibility layer for Linux, or at
>least a port of the Workspace Shell.
There's really no need for the first thing, since EMX and XFree86/2 allow
one to run just about any Unix/X type application natively. As to second
thing, I would love to see a WPS port for Linux but I doubt it'll ever
happen. Among other things, for the WPS to really work properly under
Linux it would require some kind of hack to ext2fs to support extended
attributes. Not totally insurmountable, but definitely a hurdle. It
would probably be easier to port it to NT, since NTFS supports extended
attributes. That would cause some stares....
>
> I mention Linux because that seems to be succeeding where OS/2
>has failed. I don't mean to pick on you OS/2 lovers out there, but IBM
>seems to be content to let it slowly go the way of the Amiga.
IBM gave up selling it to us lowly home users some time back, and would
love to sell it only to big organizations such as banks. Yes, IBM is
doing everything they can to drive all us little guys away. Still works
here though, and IBM does actually support it (believe it or not). Going
to have to pay for it though, pretty soon now.
As to Linux's success, that's due to a bunch of reasons, such as its *not*
from IBM or Microsoft or Novell or Apple or Sun or....(fill in the name
here). There's also quite a bit of disgust with MS that is feeding the
Linux movement-it's always fun being the underdog.
>
>--
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Loren Petrich
Jack Troughton <jack.tr...@nospam.videotron.ca> wrote:
>Ū This makes me wonder if anyone has tried to port WINE to OS/2 in
>Ūorder to get Win32 support.
>It's ongoing; started about six months or so ago. However, they're
>taking a slightly different approach. See http://www.netlabs.org/odin
>for details...
The Odin folx seem to be doing a nice job -- and one really nice
thing about them is that they graphically list their progress --
something hard to find in any of the WINE sites.
Loren Petrich
Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:18:47, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:
[What OS/2 has that Linux doesn't...]
[Choosing OS/2 when Windoze was extremely crash-prone and when Linux was
at version 0.9.x...]
>Since that time, Linux has grown enormeously (spoken in a positive
>way), Windows now has uptimes that can sometimes actually reach more
>than one day <evil grin>, and OS/2... well, it simply still does the
>job. [some simple office tasks...]
... I don't play many games (and I stink at the
>ones that I do play) ...
Interesting perspective.
and I really hate to have to learn my
>wordprocessor overnew every six months (WP6 for DOS is still my
>favourite).
Which says something about M$.
The so-called "dearth of applications" for OS/2 isn't that
>important to me: the ones I have I got in the era when there were
>plenty developers for OS/2 and I could choose. They work perfectly, so
>why complain that I can't find new ones?
That's certainly fair. My mother uses an old 286 with an old DOS
version of WordPerfect.
>One positive thing (other than the robustness) that keeps me with Warp
>is the WPS. It is a very powerful, intuitive and easy to learn OOUI.
>In fact, it is AFAIK at the moment the only OOUI in existence. ...
[on there being none like it]
I'm not likely to use OS/2 anytime soon, but I'd be happy to at
least try out a Workspace Shell clone for MacOS X, if one ever comes out.
I'm not sure if I would be able to contribute to such a project, but if
one got started...
MacOS X is, in a way, not "really" the MacOS, but an updated
version of NeXTStep with the old MacOS run in virtual-machine fashion,
something like OS/2's support for DOS and Win16.
Marty
>
> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
> > Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>
> >>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>
>
> >> Is he that much of a jerk?
>
> > him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>
> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect. What
> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
> example.
Hmm..
FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
Unfairness like not examining evidence?
Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the
executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2 system to boot!"
Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of
this?"
Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.
Marty
>
> Loren Petrich writes:
>
> > Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> >>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>
> >> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...
>
> > Is he that much of a jerk?
>
> misinformation, and illogic on this newsgroup, and then react to
> my counterings with invective.
How hypocritical, or as Dave would say (and has said numerous times), "Or is he
really that idiotic?"
Marty
>
> On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 22:54:17 -0500, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> chose
> to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >Dave Tholen wrote:
> >>
> >> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
> >>
> >> > Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
> >>
> >> >>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...
> >>
> >> >> Is he that much of a jerk?
> >>
> >> > him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
> >>
> >> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect. What
> >> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
> >> example.
> >
> >Hmm..
> >FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
> >Unfairness like not examining evidence?
> >Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the
> >executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2 system to boot!"
> >Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of
> >this?"
> >
> >Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.
>
> have EMacs' Eliza all warmed up. AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks
> once and he answered every one of those posts with out suspecting.
> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!
That's meerly par for the course for Tholen. Over here in COOA, he has
proceeded to respond to song lyrics (line by line in some cases), deny that he
had done so, then deny that they were song lyrics. He's also had an ongoing
infantile game with Eric Bennett in which Dave pretends that he is responding
with Eliza generated phrases, even though it is obvious that Eliza would not
have generated many of the responses he has posted.
Here's a few examples for your amusement:
Song #1:
http://x32.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=538247932&search=thread&CONTEXT=943849178.506265609&HIT_CONTEXT=943849178.506265609&hitnum=7
Song #5: which received several positive comments from other members of COOA
and is a personal favorite of mine
http://x32.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=538722843&search=thread&CONTEXT=943849178.506265609&HIT_CONTEXT=943849178.506265609&hitnum=19
And one of Tholen's more recent postings in his infantile game with Eric
Bennett:
http://x34.deja.com/=rj/getdoc.xp?AN=551843330.2&CONTEXT=943850504.1821966368&hitnum=0
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
- Marty
Loren Petrich
Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:18:47, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:
>> And is it fair to say that OS/2 is what Windoze ought to have been?
>That depends. For frustrated Windows users, maybe. But for Microsoft,
>that now has a vast market of gullible money-spenders, who knows? It's
>in their interest to make Windows just crappy enough, and have people
>believe that it is everybody's but Microsoft's fault. It's called good
>marketing, and there are people in this newsgroup who will actually
>praise Microsoft for doing such a thing.
Actually, what one is accustomed to often plays a large part in
making such judgments. Consider some anecdotes from the xUSSR in the
1960's and 1970's, when it started accepting lots of tourists and when
lots of upper-ranking Soviets started traveling abroad.
A Soviet official went abroad and visited a US(?) car factory. He
asked why his hosts went through all the trouble to round up cars to
impress him. To him, those cars must have been yet another Potemkin Village.
Some guests from the US or western Europe asked their hosts if
they felt any hardship in having to get hard currency. Their hosts
responded that they are sure that their guests had had to do that. But
the joke here is that their guests' countries' currency is *already* hard
currency.
Thus, many people accustomed to the crankiness of M$ software may
be like all those Soviet citizens accustomed to Potemkin Villages and
having to acquire hard currency.
Source: "Russia: the Power and the Glory"(?), by someone whose
name I don't recall; also, there is Hedrick Smith's "The Russians"(?).
>Microsoft MVP -- Not!
Yes, I know about that scandal where M$ fired some of them.
Mike Trettel
>In article <383F53F2...@groovyshow.com>, Kelly Robinson
Long rant snipped for brevity...
>
>Why don't you try to LEARN something about the Mac before you condemn it?
>I put it to you that you haven't a clue about how the Mac system works,
>and therefore have no credibility in you criticisms of it. Go play with
>your OS/2.
George (and Loren), you really should be aware that Kelly Robinson (not
his real name, btw) is no more an OS/2 user than you are. He spends an
inordinate amount of in cooa slamming OS/2 and its users, and is if
anything an NT advocate. And yes, he has displayed just as much
ignorance of how OS/2 works as he apparently has of the MacOS. You got
trolled, and swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.
>
>--
>George Graves
Dave Tholen
> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
Nothing different compared to the last several years.
Dave Tholen
> but IBM does not seem to be taking OS/2 anywhere
What seems to you is irrelevant.
Dave Tholen
> Karel Jansens wrote:
>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...
> Is he that much of a jerk?
Not at all. The "jerks" are the ones who try to foist their FUD,
Dave Tholen
> Loren Petrich wrote:
>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...
>> Is he that much of a jerk?
> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
Dave Tholen
>> Loren Petrich writes:
> Well where is Big Blue taking it then?
Ask Big Blue.
Dave Tholen
>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
> There goes the neighborhood!
Illogical.
> ;) You claimed to have killfiled me some months ago.
Incorrect. I've never claimed to have killfiled anyone.
> What happened?
Your memory problem got in the way.
> Did you finally realize you couldn't live without my sage guidance? :)
You're erroneously presupposing that I killfiled you.
cbas...@my-deja.com
>
> >>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very
> >>> much.
>
> >> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to
> >> him, ...
>
> > Is he that much of a jerk?
>
> misinformation, and illogic on this newsgroup,
Loren and Karel, if you are reading this, take note. In the
"Navigator 4.7 Available" thread, Dave Tholen wrote the following:
"Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
on an OS/2 system to boot!"
He was referring to JAVAINUF.EXE, which is an OS/2 self-extracting
archive containing either the Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 runtime or the Java
1.1.8 for OS/2 Development Kit (I forget which, exactly, and it doesn't
really matter at this point).
The statement is wrong. One can extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE
using WinZip, which is to say:
1) One does *NOT* have to run the executable file.
2) One does *NOT* have to be in OS/2 to extract the contents.
Dave Tholen posted misinformation, guys. What's even worse is that he
posted this on October 29, 1999, which was four weeks (!!) ago, and has
yet to either retract or admit to the error.
> and then react to my counterings with invective.
Who wouldn't?
Here is my challenge to both of you:
Disagree with Tholen on a technical issue, and voice said disagreement.
As long as you are chatting about Sci-Fi and Monty Python, Dave can be
quite friendly, I suppose.
But go ahead and peruse the "Navigator 4.7" thread in Deja or Remarq,
and see the lengths to which Tholen will go in order to avoid admitting
this mistake.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dave Tholen
>>>> Loren Petrich writes:
>>>>> but IBM does not seem to be taking OS/2 anywhere
>>>> What seems to you is irrelevant.
>>> Well where is Big Blue taking it then?
>> Ask Big Blue.
> They keep pretending it doesn't exist.
Incorrect, given that they announced a new version of the server
recently.
Dave Tholen
> Marty wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...
>>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?
>>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect. What
>>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>>> example.
>> Hmm..
>> FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
>> Unfairness like not examining evidence?
>> Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the
>> executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2 system to boot!"
>> Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of
>> this?"
>>
>> Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.
> Since Tholen has shown up here
I've been "here" for years. I did not just "show up".
> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed up.
Irrelevant.
> AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks once and he answered every one of
> those posts with out suspecting.
Wrong again. Your memory is rather poor.
> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!
Fantasies can be that way. Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.
Dave Tholen
>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>>>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...
>>>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?
>>>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>>>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>>>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect. What
>>>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>>>> example.
>>> There goes the neighborhood!
>> Illogical.
>>> ;) You claimed to have killfiled me some months ago.
>> Incorrect. I've never claimed to have killfiled anyone.
>>> What happened?
>> Your memory problem got in the way.
>>> Did you finally realize you couldn't live without my sage guidance? :)
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I killfiled you.
> Sorry, Dave but I remember it well.
No you don't. Your alleged memory is a fantasy.
> You declared that I wasn't 'serious' enough to be worth talking to
> and proclaimed me killfiled.
Wrong again. Feel free to reproduce this alleged declaration, if you
think you can.
Karel Jansens
wrote:
>
> >One positive thing (other than the robustness) that keeps me with Warp
> >is the WPS. It is a very powerful, intuitive and easy to learn OOUI.
> >In fact, it is AFAIK at the moment the only OOUI in existence. ...
> [on there being none like it]
>
> I'm not likely to use OS/2 anytime soon, but I'd be happy to at
> least try out a Workspace Shell clone for MacOS X, if one ever comes out.
> I'm not sure if I would be able to contribute to such a project, but if
> one got started...
>
The issue has been discussed at length here (and in more sane groups
as well). Problem is that the functionality of the Workplace Shell is
intimately linked to Warp's innards, including the HPFS file system
(the WPS can work from FAT, but it is a - ahem! - kludge). Warp
contains code from so many places that, even _if_ IBM wanted to
release the source, they first need the agreement of a zillion other
companies, including Microsoft (who are, as we all know, adamant
supporters of the open source model). Ironically, as Mike Trettel
pointed out, the only other file system in existence that supports
extended attributes is... NTFS. And a port of the WPS to NT is waayyy
below the last point on my wishlist...
Regularly, the idea of a cleanroom FreeOS/2 pops up. There might be
something in it. IMHO, the overall problem is that OS/2 is just too
damn' good to give people an incentive to make a new one <G>.
> MacOS X is, in a way, not "really" the MacOS, but an updated
> version of NeXTStep with the old MacOS run in virtual-machine fashion,
> something like OS/2's support for DOS and Win16.
They should have called it MachOS X <G>.
Karel Jansens
wrote:
Heh.
"Who needs drugs when we've got reality?"
(if this isn't a famous quote already, I hereby claim it)
> >Microsoft MVP -- Not!
>
> Yes, I know about that scandal where M$ fired some of them.
They went all quiet and sad and sulky, so they hired them back <G>.
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
Dave Tholen
CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.
I am deleting almost all but the most recent new text.
Curtis Bass writes:
> Loren and Karel, if you are reading this, take note.
Indeed, they should.
> In the "Navigator 4.7 Available" thread, Dave Tholen wrote the
> following:
In that thread, Timbol responded with "Bullshit" to a factual statement
about OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implementing Java 1.2 functionality. I countered
Timbol's misinformation.
> He was referring to JAVAINUF.EXE, which is an OS/2 self-extracting
> archive containing either the Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 runtime or the Java
> 1.1.8 for OS/2 Development Kit (I forget which, exactly, and it doesn't
> really matter at this point).
That's the file containing classes.zip, which Timbol tried to cite as
evidence for the lack of Java 2 security classes in the JDK.
Unfortunately for his argument, the functionality of the Java 2
security classes was implemented in the file secma.zip, which was not
part of the javainuf.exe archive.
> The statement is wrong.
Timbol's "bullshit" claim is wrong. His so-called evidence in
classes.zip and javainuf.exe is wrong.
> One can extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE using WinZip,
No unzipper can magically make the proper bytes appear for an
incomplete file, Curtis, including WinZip.
> which is to say:
>
> 1) One does *NOT* have to run the executable file.
Which is to say that WinZip isn't superior to InfoZip, as some claimed.
> 2) One does *NOT* have to be in OS/2 to extract the contents.
Which is to say that it doesn't make OS/2 look bad, as some claimed.
> Dave Tholen posted misinformation, guys.
Timbol posted misinformation, Curtis. I countered that misinformation.
> What's even worse is that he posted this on October 29, 1999, which
> was four weeks (!!) ago, and has yet to either retract or admit to
> the error.
Timbol's misinformation was posted even longer ago than that, Curtis.
Where is his retraction or error admission? Why haven't you gone
after him with as much vigor as you've gone after me?
> Who wouldn't?
Those who prefer to use logic for their arguments.
> Here is my challenge to both of you:
>
> Disagree with Tholen on a technical issue, and voice said disagreement.
Why would they want to do that, Curtis?
> As long as you are chatting about Sci-Fi and Monty Python, Dave can be
> quite friendly, I suppose.
Why are your categories so restrictive, Curtis?
> But go ahead and peruse the "Navigator 4.7" thread in Deja or Remarq,
> and see the lengths to which Tholen will go in order to avoid admitting
> this mistake.
Go ahead and peruse that thread and see the lengths to which Timbol will
go to spread his misinformation. Then watch Bass jump in with his
invective, his illogic about making OS/2 look bad, Marty's "infantile
game", and Lucien's attempt to cover up his own illogic.
Dave Tholen
a serious discussion, but I know better, having seen him use Eliza
when I was still responding seriously. Of course, there's really
nothing new to his responses. He justs keeps ignoring my previous
responses. Here's today's digest:
1> More of his infantile game. No surprise there.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Typical unsubstantiated "invective".
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Irrelevant, as technology still has its limits. Evidence of this
1> is the fact that the article in question did not show up on DejaNews.
1> But I guess Tholen expects all news archives to function the same way,
1> just as he idiotically and ineptly expects all archiving tools to
1> function the same way.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Apparently it is, as no one else has a problem accessing the evidence
1> in question.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> And there is no reason to care, as the evidence in question does exist
1> and proves Tholen wrong on yet another point, namely, "Yet to look at
1> the contents, one must have run the executable file and on an OS/2
1> system to boot!" Here's the evidence in question:
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Irrelevant, as Dave has ignored the evidence presented on other
1> servers as well.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Perhaps Dave's "evidnece" is something different than evidence which
1> can show that he is right, but no evidence he has presented shows him
1> to be correct.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> And they can witness Dave's hypocrisy, "Or are you really that idiotic?"
1> And Dave's infantile game, "Is it because of your sex life that your
1> are going through all of this?" And Dave's numerous errors, "Yet to
1> look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and on an
1> OS/2 system to boot!" And Dave's avoidance of addressing the issues,
1> "I've already answered that question, Lucien." And the list goes on...
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> What he has "effectively" claimed is irrelevant. What he has claimed
1> is relevant. Of course, this isn't the first time Dave has made an
1> unwarranted extrapolation.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> And other can witness Dave's ineptness at defending his claims by
1> failing to download the file in question, then failing to realized it
1> after attempting to unzip it. All this he does, after claiming that
1> he himself had full access to the file in question. Now that's
1> laughable.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> And others can again witness Dave's hypocrisy by failing to address
1> the numerous issues presented to him by feebly attempting to dodge
1> them with irrelevant remarks.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Now that really addresses the issue:
1> "Others can peruse the thread, see the evidence, and discover that
1> while I'm addressing the issue, you're making personal attacks."
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Of course, Dave has still failed to realize that his incomplete copy
1> of the file is complete only in its lack of relevance.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Of course Dave hasn't seen any evidence, not even the globally
1>available URL or the evidence on remarq.com. No surprise there.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Hmm.. wrong beliefs like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must
1> have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!"
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Thus Tholen's justification for not examining evidence.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Why, here's one: "Yet, to look at the contents, one must have run
1> the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!"
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> So if Tholen had not implied that, then his statements were empty,
1> hollow, pointless, and irrelevant. I guess I see his point there.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
2> Hmm..
2> FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
2> Unfairness like not examining evidence?
2> Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have
2> run the executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2
2> system to boot!" Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that
2> you are going through all of this?"
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
2> Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
3> That's meerly par for the course for Tholen. Over here in COOA, he
3> has proceeded to respond to song lyrics (line by line in some cases),
3> deny that he had done so, then deny that they were song lyrics. He's
3> also had an ongoing infantile game with Eric Bennett in which Dave
3> pretends that he is responding with Eliza generated phrases, even
3> though it is obvious that Eliza would not have generated many of the
3> responses he has posted.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
3> And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
4> How hypocritical, or as Dave would say (and has said numerous times),
4> "Or is he really that idiotic?"
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
5> Note that you have yet to explain why knowing to which Tholen I'm
5> referring is not irrelevant.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
Joe Malloy
serious discussion, but I know better, having seen him use Eliza when others
were still responding seriously. Of course, he may actually *be* Eliza, but
there's really nothing new to his responses. He justs keeps ignoring the
request of most Usenet readers for him to respond substantively. Here's
today's digest:
{sorry] {There ya' go, Tholen!]
No, don't thank me!
Richard A Crane
Nenad Milenkovic
> And as to OS/2, I wonder if anyone has written a
> Linux-compatibility layer.
Binary compatiblity is not yet possible.
Nenad
George Graves
<LPNO...@iroadrunner.net> wrote:
>ZnU <z...@znu.dhs.org> wrote in message
>news:znu-0132D9.0...@news5.bellatlantic.net...
>> In article <383F53F2...@groovyshow.com>, Kelly Robinson
>> <is...@groovyshow.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Because, quite frankly, any PC OS (Unix/Linux excepted) is going to be
>> > much easier for computer illiterates to use.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Yeah, yeah. We get the point. Look, Mac OS X is going to ship (no matter
>> how late it is) long before anything seriously challenges the Mac's #2
>> desktop OS spot. I suspect OS X will answer your complaints.
>
>Where do you get your numbers? *EVERTHING* I have seen place not only
>Win98, but WIn95, NT4.0 as well
>as Win3.11 WfWG installed and running OS's before the MacOS.
But they are all different iterations of the SAME OS - Windows. There is
Windows, then there is MacOS. That puts MacOS #2
--
George Graves
Marty
>
> Richard A Crane writes:
>
> >> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
> >>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very much.
>
> >>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to him, ...
>
> >>>> Is he that much of a jerk?
>
> >>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
> >>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>
> >> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect. What
> >> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
> >> example.
>
>
Dave again restates the obvious and adds nothing to the discussion. No
surprise there.
WickedDyno
wrote:
>Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>> Where does Mr. Tholen find the time?
>
>The same place that the responding parties find the time.
>
In a secret chest in his attic. . . along with his form of logic. . .
it's also where he keeps his sense of humor.
(Zoo guard: Sorry sir, feeding time for the Homo kookius is over.)
--
| Andrew M. Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> |
|"The Library is a sphere whose exact center is any one of its hexagons|
| and whose circumference is inaccessible." -- Jorge Luis Borges |
|"One feels as if one is dissolved and merged into nature." -- Einstein|
WickedDyno
wrote:
>Andrew M. Glasgow writes:
>
>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>
>>>> Where does Mr. Tholen find the time?
>
>>> The same place that the responding parties find the time.
>
>> In a secret chest in his attic. . .
>
>Illogical.
>
>> along with his form of logic. . .
>
>Better than yours.
>
>> it's also where he keeps his sense of humor.
>
>Also illogical.
>
>> (Zoo guard: Sorry sir, feeding time for the Homo kookius is over.)
>
>Typical invective.
>
Nyuk nyuk nyuk. :)
Dave Tholen
>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
Dave Tholen
Loren Petrich
Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:48:19, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:
>> I'm not likely to use OS/2 anytime soon, but I'd be happy to at
>> least try out a Workspace Shell clone for MacOS X, if one ever comes out.
>> I'm not sure if I would be able to contribute to such a project, but if
>> one got started...
>The issue has been discussed at length here (and in more sane groups
>as well). Problem is that the functionality of the Workplace Shell is
>intimately linked to Warp's innards, including the HPFS file system
>(the WPS can work from FAT, but it is a - ahem! - kludge). ...
[on support for Extended Attributes...]
However, the MacOS does have an EA-like feature in its filesystem.
Its files have two forks, a data fork (a DOS/Unix-like simple stream) and
a resource fork (a mini-database). In the latter, objects have a name, a
4-byte resource type, a 2-byte resource ID, and various flags.
[problems with licensing parts of OS/2...]
I've seen news reports about some team in IBM that is examining
IBM's software to see what can feasibly be open-sourced.
>Regularly, the idea of a cleanroom FreeOS/2 pops up. There might be
>something in it. IMHO, the overall problem is that OS/2 is just too
>damn' good to give people an incentive to make a new one <G>.
Except for IBM being in control...
>> MacOS X is, in a way, not "really" the MacOS, but an updated
>> version of NeXTStep with the old MacOS run in virtual-machine fashion,
>> something like OS/2's support for DOS and Win16.
>They should have called it MachOS X <G>.
Cute.
Dave Tholen
>>> Marty wrote:
>>>> I wrote:
>>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What's with Dave Tholen? I have not followed his postings very
>>>>>>>>> much.
>>>>>>>> You're likely going to get a few posts telling you not to talk to
>>>>>>>> him, ...
>>>>>>> Is he that much of a jerk?
>>>>>> Try it. Post into an OS/2 group. You don't have to slam OS/2 to get
>>>>>> him going. All you have to do is suggest that OS/2 isn't perfect.
>>>>> Illogical, given that I've never claimed that OS/2 is perfect. What
>>>>> "gets me going" is FUD, unfairness, misinformation, and illogic, for
>>>>> example.
>>>> Hmm..
>>>> FUD like accusations of playing an infantile game?
>>>> Unfairness like not examining evidence?
>>>> Misinformation like, "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run
>>>> the executable file [JAVAINUF.EXE - the OS/2 JDK] and on an OS/2 system
>>>> to boot!" Illogic like, "Is it because of your sex life that you are
>>>> going through all of this?"
>>>>
>>>> Looks like Dave is perfectly capable of getting himself started.
>>> Since Tholen has shown up here
>> I've been "here" for years. I did not just "show up".
> I saw you just show up.
Not "here".
> One minute you weren't there; the next you were.
Illogical, given the typical time scales involved. Most people sleep,
thus there will be nearly daily a period of several hours when people
don't "show up", including you.
> Scared the hell out of me, it did!
That's your problem.
>>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed up.
>> Irrelevant.
> Is too!
Is that a statement of agreement?
>>> AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks once and he answered every one of
>>> those posts with out suspecting.
>> Wrong again. Your memory is rather poor.
> Maybe, but my memory just bought a boatload of lottery tickets so
> maybe it'll be rich come Saturday!
Illogical, given that memory doesn't buy lottery tickets. And I know
for a fact that your memory is poor, given that you erroneously believe
that I declared to have killfiled you.
>>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!
>> Fantasies can be that way.
> You do not appear in any of my fantasies....
Incorrect, given that my alleged killfile declaration is one of your
fantasies.
> well, not many of them anyway...certainly not the really, really good
> ones!
Ambiguous.
>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.
> Irrelevant!
On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.
Dave Tholen
>>>>> Marty wrote:
>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>> Not "here".
> Yes, here. Here is CSMA.
Not to me. However, this is not the first time I've had articles
cross-posted to that newsgroup either.
>>> One minute you weren't there; the next you were.
>> Illogical, given the typical time scales involved. Most people sleep,
>> thus there will be nearly daily a period of several hours when people
>> don't "show up", including you.
> I never sleep; I am always here.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>>> Scared the hell out of me, it did!
>> That's your problem.
> And my cleaner's as well.
On what basis do you make that claim?
>>>>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed up.
>>>> Irrelevant.
>>> Is too!
>> Is that a statement of agreement?
> Turn 180 degrees and find a new meaning.
I see you didn't answer my question unambiguously.
>>>>> AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks once and he answered every one of
>>>>> those posts with out suspecting.
>>>> Wrong again. Your memory is rather poor.
>>> Maybe, but my memory just bought a boatload of lottery tickets so
>>> maybe it'll be rich come Saturday!
>> Illogical, given that memory doesn't buy lottery tickets.
> Perhaps your memory is so limited but that does not mean that mine is
> so restricted.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>> And I know for a fact that your memory is poor, given that you
>> erroneously believe that I declared to have killfiled you.
> Talk to me again after the drawing Saturday.
The Saturday drawing won't change reality.
>>>>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!
>>>> Fantasies can be that way.
>>> You do not appear in any of my fantasies....
>> Incorrect, given that my alleged killfile declaration is one of your
>> fantasies.
> Do you want to know what you're wearing in my fantasies?
"You do not appear in any of my fantasies...."
>>> well, not many of them anyway...certainly not the really, really good
>>> ones!
>> Ambiguous.
> Crows have been known to live as long as 20 years.
Irrelevant.
>>>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.
>>> Irrelevant!
>> On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.
> Why is it that you think my killfile claim is relevant?
It demonstrates your poor memory.
Dave Tholen
>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>>> Where does Mr. Tholen find the time?
>> The same place that the responding parties find the time.
> In a secret chest in his attic. . .
Dave Tholen
>>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>>>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>> Not "here".
> Do tell...
Why?
>>>>> One minute you weren't there; the next you were.
>>>> Illogical, given the typical time scales involved. Most people sleep,
>>>> thus there will be nearly daily a period of several hours when people
>>>> don't "show up", including you.
>>> I never sleep; I am always here.
>> Prove it, if you think you can.
> Add up the times I've posted and then divide by the number of days in
> a year.
Illogical.
> You will see that the numbers are different.
So what?
> What other proof can there be?
Something more logical.
>>>>> Scared the hell out of me, it did!
>>>> That's your problem.
>>> And my cleaner's as well.
>> On what basis do you make that claim?
> On the basis that I was so frightened that I soiled my pants!
How is that a basis for your cleaner's problem?
>>>>>>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed up.
>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>> Is too!
>>>> Is that a statement of agreement?
>>> Turn 180 degrees and find a new meaning.
>> I see you didn't answer my question unambiguously.
> Unambiguousness is for wimps.
On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?
>>>>>>> AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks once and he answered every one of
>>>>>>> those posts with out suspecting.
>>>>>> Wrong again. Your memory is rather poor.
>>>>> Maybe, but my memory just bought a boatload of lottery tickets so
>>>>> maybe it'll be rich come Saturday!
>>>> Illogical, given that memory doesn't buy lottery tickets.
>>> Perhaps your memory is so limited but that does not mean that mine is
>>> so restricted.
>> Prove it, if you think you can.
> All will be known come the Saturay drawing!
The Saturday drawing won't change reality.
>>>> And I know for a fact that your memory is poor, given that you
>>>> erroneously believe that I declared to have killfiled you.
>>> Talk to me again after the drawing Saturday.
>> The Saturday drawing won't change reality.
> It will certainly supplement it if things go my memory's way!
The future can't change the past.
>>>>>>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!
>>>>>> Fantasies can be that way.
>>>>> You do not appear in any of my fantasies....
>>>> Incorrect, given that my alleged killfile declaration is one of your
>>>> fantasies.
>>> Do you want to know what you're wearing in my fantasies?
>> "You do not appear in any of my fantasies...."
> Read the line below and all will be answered.
You like to contradict yourself?
>>>>> well, not many of them anyway...certainly not the really, really good
>>>>> ones!
>>>> Ambiguous.
>>> Crows have been known to live as long as 20 years.
>> Irrelevant.
> Not to the crows.
The crows aren't reading this newsgroup.
>>>>>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.
>>>>> Irrelevant!
>>>> On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.
>>> Why is it that you think my killfile claim is relevant?
>> It demonstrates your poor memory.
> Wait until Saturday.
What will Saturday do?
Dave Tholen
>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>>>>> Where does Mr. Tholen find the time?
>>>> The same place that the responding parties find the time.
>>> In a secret chest in his attic. . .
>> Illogical.
>>> along with his form of logic. . .
>> Better than yours.
>>> it's also where he keeps his sense of humor.
>> Also illogical.
>>> (Zoo guard: Sorry sir, feeding time for the Homo kookius is over.)
>> Typical invective.
> Nyuk nyuk nyuk. :)
Is that the best you have to offer?
Marty
>
> > Nyuk nyuk nyuk. :)
>
> Is that the best you have to offer?
Sure beats, "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of
this?"
Marty
>
> >>>> That's your problem.
>
> >>> And my cleaner's as well.
>
> >> On what basis do you make that claim?
>
> > On the basis that I was so frightened that I soiled my pants!
>
> How is that a basis for your cleaner's problem?
Dave has no idea what a "cleaner" even is. Be kind.
> >>>>>>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed up.
>
> >>>>>> Irrelevant.
>
> >>>>> Is too!
>
> >>>> Is that a statement of agreement?
>
> >>> Turn 180 degrees and find a new meaning.
>
> >> I see you didn't answer my question unambiguously.
>
> > Unambiguousness is for wimps.
>
> On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?
Don't worry Dave, he wasn't calling *you* a wimp.
> The crows aren't reading this newsgroup.
Prove it, if you think you can.
Dave Tholen
his "infantile game" on me as well. Here's today's digest:
1> Dave again restates the obvious and adds nothing to the discussion.
1> No surprise there.
How ironic, coming from the person whose "infantile game" adds nothing
to the discussion.
2> Sure beats, "Is it because of your sex life that you are going
2> through all of this?"
How ironic, coming from the person who started down that path.
3> Dave has no idea what a "cleaner" even is. Be kind.
Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
3> Don't worry Dave, he wasn't calling *you* a wimp.
Irrelevant, given that I didn't say he was.
3> Prove it, if you think you can.
Unnecessary. If you want to think that crows read this newsgroup, go
right ahead, Marty.
Ran across an interesting tidbit in comp.os.os2.misc. Seems that the
poster below also disagrees with the position held by Timbol and Marty.
And Bass chooses to remain ignorant so he can avoid supporting my
position.
] From: Craig Benbow <ben...@tui.lincoln.ac.nz>
] Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
] Subject: Re: Java 1.2 for OS/2
] Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:58:43 +1300
] Message-ID: <38418973...@tui.lincoln.ac.nz>
] References: <383FF736...@tps-labs.com>
]
] You can't just look at the version numbers of the JDK you must look
] inside!
]
] If you look into JDK 1.1.8 from IBM you will see almost all the features
] in Suns JDK 1.2 BUT IBM are not calling it 1.2 because they don't think
] it is fit to be called 1.2 yet.
]
] I have just installed 1.1.8 from IBM with the swing extensions and it
] smokes! In comparison to Suns VM on Windows JDK & JRE 1.1.8 for OS/2 is
] light years ahead in speed and stability. Don't know about you but I am
] quite happy to wait to get this level of performance.
tholenbot
wrote:
> As if Marty's "infantile game" with Dimsdale wasn't enough, he continued
> his "infantile game" on me as well.
How ironic, coming from someone who plays infantile games.
--
I do not 'approve' phrases.
-Dave Tholen
Joe Malloy
continues his "infantile game" on me as well. Here's today's digest:
[Sorry, Charlie!]
No, no thanks necessary!
Dave Tholen
>> As if Marty's "infantile game" with Dimsdale wasn't enough, he continued
>> his "infantile game" on me as well.
> How ironic, coming from someone who plays infantile games.
On what basis do you make that claim?
Marty
>
> As if Marty's "infantile game" with Dimsdale wasn't enough, he continued
As if Tholen's idiocy in other threads wasn't enough, he continued his
infantile digest game. He also seems to be admitting again (unwittingly, as
usual) that his own behavior is infantile, as he has called my behavior
infantile when I have emulated him. This shouldn't come as a surprise to
anyone. Of more note, however, is that he has decided once again to spread his
infantile digest game across to the Mac newsgroup, as if they hadn't had enough
of (what Dave refers to himself as) Dave's "baby-talk tripe".
> 1> Dave again restates the obvious and adds nothing to the discussion.
> 1> No surprise there.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person whose "infantile game" adds nothing
> to the discussion.
How embarrassing, coming from the inept fool whose "digest" presently adds
nothing to two (!!) distinct newsgroups.
> 2> Sure beats, "Is it because of your sex life that you are going
> 2> through all of this?"
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who started down that path.
Poor ignorant Dave. He still doesn't realize that the only times I have
responded with that phrase were to his baseless accusations of playing an
infantile game. It was done to show Dave's usual brand of hypocrisy, seeing as
how he originated the quote in his own hypocritical infantile game with Eric
Bennett.
> 3> Dave has no idea what a "cleaner" even is. Be kind.
>
> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Actually quite substantiated, as Tholen failed to realize how dropping a
pantload could become a cleaner's problem.
> 3> Don't worry Dave, he wasn't calling *you* a wimp.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say he was.
Irrelevant, given that I didn't say Dave said he was.
> 3> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Unnecessary. If you want to think that crows read this newsgroup, go
> right ahead, Marty.
Dave was the one that made the claim that they aren't. Where is his proof?
Why, nowhere to be seen! I never claimed that they were, nor that I wanted to
believe that they were.
> Ran across an interesting tidbit in comp.os.os2.misc.
Interesting to whom? CSMA? Dubious.
> Seems that the poster below also disagrees with the position held by Timbol
> and Marty.
As is his right to do so. That doesn't make him correct.
> And Bass chooses to remain ignorant so he can avoid supporting my
> position.
Actually, he chooses to remain logical so he can avoid supporting Dave's
position.
Dave Tholen
>>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>>>> Not "here".
>>> Do tell...
>> Why?
> Inquiring minds want to know!
They already know that this is not the first time I've had articles
cross-posted to that newsgroup.
>>>>>>> One minute you weren't there; the next you were.
>>>>>> Illogical, given the typical time scales involved. Most people sleep,
>>>>>> thus there will be nearly daily a period of several hours when people
>>>>>> don't "show up", including you.
>>>>> I never sleep; I am always here.
>>>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>>> Add up the times I've posted and then divide by the number of days in
>>> a year.
>> Illogical.
>>> You will see that the numbers are different.
>> So what?
>>> What other proof can there be?
>> Something more logical.
> Hmmm...I see that you must not be aquainted with Junenksian
> mathematics.
Should I be?
> I don't have time to explain it all
Yet you have time to respond.
> so just take my word on it.
I'd rather not.
>>>>>>> Scared the hell out of me, it did!
>>>>>> That's your problem.
>>>>> And my cleaner's as well.
>>>> On what basis do you make that claim?
>>> On the basis that I was so frightened that I soiled my pants!
>> How is that a basis for your cleaner's problem?
> He had to clean them.
How does that make him scared?
> I'd just had a heaping helping of chili, too.
> Nasty affair, that.
Perhaps you should consider wearing diapers.
>>>>>>>>> I've ran a phone line to my COL box and have EMacs' Eliza all warmed up.
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>> Is too!
>>>>>> Is that a statement of agreement?
>>>>> Turn 180 degrees and find a new meaning.
>>>> I see you didn't answer my question unambiguously.
>>> Unambiguousness is for wimps.
>> On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?
> On the basis that I'm neither unambiguous, nor a wimp.
Illogical.
>>>>>>>>> AIRC Glatt Eliza'ed him for two weeks once and he answered every one of
>>>>>>>>> those posts with out suspecting.
>>>>>>>> Wrong again. Your memory is rather poor.
>>>>>>> Maybe, but my memory just bought a boatload of lottery tickets so
>>>>>>> maybe it'll be rich come Saturday!
>>>>>> Illogical, given that memory doesn't buy lottery tickets.
>>>>> Perhaps your memory is so limited but that does not mean that mine is
>>>>> so restricted.
>>>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>>> All will be known come the Saturay drawing!
>> The Saturday drawing won't change reality.
> Maybe not yours, but if we hit it big my memory's reality will be
> greatly changed!
Also illogical.
>>>>>> And I know for a fact that your memory is poor, given that you
>>>>>> erroneously believe that I declared to have killfiled you.
>>>>> Talk to me again after the drawing Saturday.
>>>> The Saturday drawing won't change reality.
>>> It will certainly supplement it if things go my memory's way!
>> The future can't change the past.
> But it can buy a better present!
Irrelevant, given that the discussion was about the past.
>>>>>>>>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!
>>>>>>>> Fantasies can be that way.
>>>>>>> You do not appear in any of my fantasies....
>>>>>> Incorrect, given that my alleged killfile declaration is one of your
>>>>>> fantasies.
>>>>> Do you want to know what you're wearing in my fantasies?
>>>> "You do not appear in any of my fantasies...."
>>> Read the line below and all will be answered.
>> You like to contradict yourself?
> Among other things I like to do to myself.
Why?
>>>>>>> well, not many of them anyway...certainly not the really, really good
>>>>>>> ones!
>>>>>> Ambiguous.
>>>>> Crows have been known to live as long as 20 years.
>>>> Irrelevant.
>>> Not to the crows.
>> The crows aren't reading this newsgroup.
> How can you be so sure?
Crows can't read.
>>>>>>>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.
>>>>>>> Irrelevant!
>>>>>> On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.
>>>>> Why is it that you think my killfile claim is relevant?
>>>> It demonstrates your poor memory.
>>> Wait until Saturday.
>> What will Saturday do?
> You'll see...oh, yeah, you'll see! :)
I doubt it.
tholenbot
ev5...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 30 Nov 1999 04:57:16 GMT, tholena...@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
On what basis do you make this claim?
> >>>>>> One minute you weren't there; the next you were.
> >
> >>>>> Illogical, given the typical time scales involved. Most people
> >>>>> sleep,
> >>>>> thus there will be nearly daily a period of several hours when
> >>>>> people
> >>>>> don't "show up", including you.
> >
> >>>> I never sleep; I am always here.
> >
> >>> Prove it, if you think you can.
> >
> >> Add up the times I've posted and then divide by the number of days in
> >> a year.
> >
> >Illogical.
> >
> >> You will see that the numbers are different.
> >
> >So what?
> >
> >> What other proof can there be?
> >
> >Something more logical.
>
> Hmmm...I see that you must not be aquainted with Junenksian
> mathematics. I don't have time to explain it all so just take my word
> on it.
Truth by proclamation, Mayor? Ineffective.
> >>>>>> Scared the hell out of me, it did!
> >
> >>>>> That's your problem.
> >
> >>>> And my cleaner's as well.
> >
> >>> On what basis do you make that claim?
> >
> >> On the basis that I was so frightened that I soiled my pants!
> >
> >How is that a basis for your cleaner's problem?
>
> He had to clean them. I'd just had a heaping helping of chili, too.
> Nasty affair, that.
What was "nasty" about it?
Illogical.
I see you have tried to change your position from "will" to "if". How
predictable that you were unable to substantiate your original claim.
> >>>>> And I know for a fact that your memory is poor, given that you
> >>>>> erroneously believe that I declared to have killfiled you.
> >
> >>>> Talk to me again after the drawing Saturday.
> >
> >>> The Saturday drawing won't change reality.
> >
> >> It will certainly supplement it if things go my memory's way!
> >
> >The future can't change the past.
>
> But it can buy a better present!
Irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>> More fun than a barrel full of Fovells!
> >
> >>>>>>> Fantasies can be that way.
> >
> >>>>>> You do not appear in any of my fantasies....
> >
> >>>>> Incorrect, given that my alleged killfile declaration is one of
> >>>>> your
> >>>>> fantasies.
> >
> >>>> Do you want to know what you're wearing in my fantasies?
> >
> >>> "You do not appear in any of my fantasies...."
> >
> >> Read the line below and all will be answered.
> >
> >You like to contradict yourself?
>
> Among other things I like to do to myself.
Illogical.
> >>>>>> well, not many of them anyway...certainly not the really, really
> >>>>>> good
> >>>>>> ones!
> >
> >>>>> Ambiguous.
> >
> >>>> Crows have been known to live as long as 20 years.
> >
> >>> Irrelevant.
> >
> >> Not to the crows.
> >
> >The crows aren't reading this newsgroup.
>
> How can you be so sure?
Don't you know?
> >>>>>>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.
> >
> >>>>>> Irrelevant!
> >
> >>>>> On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.
> >
> >>>> Why is it that you think my killfile claim is relevant?
> >
> >>> It demonstrates your poor memory.
> >
> >> Wait until Saturday.
> >
> >What will Saturday do?
>
> You'll see...oh, yeah, you'll see! :)
Posting for entertainment purposes, Mayor?
tholenbot
wrote:
On what basis do you make this claim?
> > Hmmm...I see that you must not be aquainted with Junenksian
> > mathematics.
>
> Should I be?
Aren't you certain?
> > I don't have time to explain it all
>
> Yet you have time to respond.
Irrelevant.
> > so just take my word on it.
>
> I'd rather not.
What you would rather do is not relevant.
> Crows can't read.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> >>>>>>>> Too bad it isn't the reality you think it is.
>
> >>>>>>> Irrelevant!
>
> >>>>>> On the contrary, your killfile claim is quite relevant.
>
> >>>>> Why is it that you think my killfile claim is relevant?
>
> >>>> It demonstrates your poor memory.
>
> >>> Wait until Saturday.
>
> >> What will Saturday do?
>
> > You'll see...oh, yeah, you'll see! :)
>
> I doubt it.
>
Aren't you certain, Dave?
tholenbot
wrote:
> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
>
> >> As if Marty's "infantile game" with Dimsdale wasn't enough, he
> >> continued
> >> his "infantile game" on me as well.
>
> > How ironic, coming from someone who plays infantile games.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim?
>
Ask your mentor, grasshopper.
Dave Tholen
Mac newsgroup because I was responding to one of his articles about
me that was posted to the Mac newsgroup. As usual, he's trying to
blame me for something he caused. And one can only wonder whether
his exchanges with Eric Bennett are indirectly part of the "infantile
game" that he's been playing on me. Here's today's digest:
1> As if Tholen's idiocy in other threads wasn't enough, he continued
1> his infantile digest game. He also seems to be admitting again
1> (unwittingly, as usual) that his own behavior is infantile, as he
1> has called my behavior infantile when I have emulated him. This
1> shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Of more note, however, is
1> that he has decided once again to spread his infantile digest game
1> across to the Mac newsgroup, as if they hadn't had enough of (what
1> Dave refers to himself as) Dave's "baby-talk tripe".
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> How embarrassing, coming from the inept fool whose "digest" presently
1> adds nothing to two (!!) distinct newsgroups.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Poor ignorant Dave. He still doesn't realize that the only times I
1> have responded with that phrase were to his baseless accusations of
1> playing an infantile game. It was done to show Dave's usual brand
1> of hypocrisy, seeing as how he originated the quote in his own
1> hypocritical infantile game with Eric Bennett.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Actually quite substantiated, as Tholen failed to realize how
1> dropping a pantload could become a cleaner's problem.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say Dave said he was.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Dave was the one that made the claim that they aren't. Where is his
1> proof? Why, nowhere to be seen! I never claimed that they were,
1> nor that I wanted to believe that they were.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Interesting to whom? CSMA? Dubious.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> As is his right to do so. That doesn't make him correct.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> Actually, he chooses to remain logical so he can avoid supporting
1> Dave's position.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
2> What alleged "reasoning", tholenbot?
2> Don't you know, tholenbot?
3> There is no evidence of "reasoning" above, tholenbot.
3> What alleged "cameo appearance", tholenbot?
3> Convenience is no substitute for a logical argument, tholenbot.
3> Don't you know, tholenbot?
4> I can't see what hasn't happened, tholenbot, not even with dirty
4> glasses.
4> Don't you know, tholenbot?
4> Then why make such a statement? Note the lack of explanation.
4> Taking pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?
4> Then why make such a statement? Note the lack of explanation.
4> Taking pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?
4> To whom, tholenbot? You?
4> I cannot locate what doesn't exist, tholenbot.
4> What's allegedy "illogical" about it, tholenbot?
4> Balderdash, tholenbot.
4> No tholenbot, I cannot see the piece of dirt on your glasses
4> obfuscating your vision.
5> Taking pontification lessons from Dave "Because I Said So" Tholen?
Pascal Haakmat
>Marty seems to be completely unaware that my digest showed up in the
>Mac newsgroup because I was responding to one of his articles about
>me that was posted to the Mac newsgroup. As usual, he's trying to
>blame me for something he caused. And one can only wonder whether
>his exchanges with Eric Bennett are indirectly part of the "infantile
>game" that he's been playing on me. Here's today's digest:
Dave, how have I missed you. It is nice to see Eric Bennett, primus inter
pares, was pivotal to your belated and much anticipated return in csma.
--
CSMA posting style test
http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest
Joe Malloy
for something he caused. And one can only wonder whether his exchanges with
Eric Bennett are indirectly part of the "infantile game" that he's been
playing on me. Here's today's digest:
[nothing yet!]
You're welcome!
Marty
any articles posted to or about him. As usual, he's trying to blame me for
something he caused. If we're lucky and I call him on the irrelevant
cross-posting, he may even pull the old "aim at the base of the flames"
argument out from retirement. And one can only wonder whether his exchanges
with Eric Bennett are indeirectly part of the "infantile game" the he's been
playing on me. Here's an abridged digest of valid statements to which Tholen
had no valid response (the non-abridged version resides in another thread in
COOA and consists of several thousand lines):
> 1> As if Tholen's idiocy in other threads wasn't enough, he continued
> 1> his infantile digest game. He also seems to be admitting again
> 1> (unwittingly, as usual) that his own behavior is infantile, as he
> 1> has called my behavior infantile when I have emulated him. This
> 1> shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Of more note, however, is
> 1> that he has decided once again to spread his infantile digest game
> 1> across to the Mac newsgroup, as if they hadn't had enough of (what
> 1> Dave refers to himself as) Dave's "baby-talk tripe".
> 1> How embarrassing, coming from the inept fool whose "digest" presently
> 1> adds nothing to two (!!) distinct newsgroups.
> 1> Poor ignorant Dave. He still doesn't realize that the only times I
> 1> have responded with that phrase were to his baseless accusations of
> 1> playing an infantile game. It was done to show Dave's usual brand
> 1> of hypocrisy, seeing as how he originated the quote in his own
> 1> hypocritical infantile game with Eric Bennett.
> 1> Actually quite substantiated, as Tholen failed to realize how
> 1> dropping a pantload could become a cleaner's problem.
> 1> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say Dave said he was.
> 1> Dave was the one that made the claim that they aren't. Where is his
> 1> proof? Why, nowhere to be seen! I never claimed that they were,
> 1> nor that I wanted to believe that they were.
> 1> Interesting to whom? CSMA? Dubious.
> 1> As is his right to do so. That doesn't make him correct.
> 1> Actually, he chooses to remain logical so he can avoid supporting
> 1> Dave's position.
[Note: Poor Dave appears to be confused, posting statements that were not
intended for him in this infantile "digest". Just further evidence of his
nagging reading comprehension problems (as if further evidence were needed)]
Dave Tholen
some unfinished business from this summer. Here's the latest digest:
1> What a lot of words to avoid having to say directly that Dave is an
1> strong influence and inspiration to us all. Let's not be childish
1> with praise now if the rare occurence arrives to do so. Dave's style
1> is infective, viral in it's nature. We can all attest to that. To my
1> amusement I find myself applying successfully his technique to
1> situations outside Usenet. Apply the chant of "Irrelevant, Incorrect,
1> Illogical" and everything dissolves. Very zen. Hoorah for Dave, I hope
1> the Usenet posting gives him a frequent laugh.
I hope you chant appropriately.
2> I cannot answer the question within digest form. Therefore digest form
2> is useless, thereby for my intents and purposes irrelevant.
Digest form is quite useful for my purposes.
3> Dave, how have I missed you. It is nice to see Eric Bennett, primus
3> inter pares, was pivotal to your belated and much anticipated return
3> in csma.
He was not. Marty was pivotal. And I did not "return" to csma. I
simply responded to another cross-posted article. THose who start
cross-posted threads bring this on themselves.
Dave Tholen
evidence was right there in the first line of his quoted material,
which was:
] 1> As if Tholen's idiocy in other threads wasn't enough,
yet he claimed that the article wasn't about me. An interesting
development in Marty's "infantile game". Here's today's digest:
1> Tholen seems to be completely unaware that his "digest" is not a
1> response to any articles posted to or about him. As usual, he's
1> trying to blame me for something he caused. If we're lucky and I
1> call him on the irrelevant cross-posting, he may even pull the old
1> "aim at the base of the flames" argument out from retirement. And
1> one can only wonder whether his exchanges with Eric Bennett are
1> indeirectly part of the "infantile game" the he's been playing on
1> me. Here's an abridged digest of valid statements to which Tholen
1> had no valid response (the non-abridged version resides in another
1> thread in COOA and consists of several thousand lines):
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
1> [Note: Poor Dave appears to be confused, posting statements that
1> were not intended for him in this infantile "digest". Just further
1> evidence of his nagging reading comprehension problems (as if further
1> evidence were needed)]
Pascal Haakmat
>Haakmat is now back, which gives me the opportunity to take care of
>some unfinished business from this summer. Here's the latest digest:
"back", Dave? God knows I never left, anxiously awaiting your return.
You are such a considerate fine gentleman, Dave. My heart SWELLS with joy
that you took the trouble to follow up on some of our, you phrase it so
delicately accurate, unfinished business.
>I hope you chant appropriately.
Like a broken clock, I chant endlessly, in the hope of being appropriate
at least twice a day.
>Digest form is quite useful for my purposes.
Ah, digest form. It is such a joy to hear you extoll the virtues of digest
form. When did you first begin to consider digest form, Dave?
>He was not. Marty was pivotal. And I did not "return" to csma. I
>simply responded to another cross-posted article. THose who start
>cross-posted threads bring this on themselves.
That's Dave for you, always heedful and alert! Of course you did not
"return" to csma, Dave. But I was only being wishful. Won't you grant me the
illusion that, yes, just maybe, you returned to csma just to continue your
unfinished business with me?
Dave Tholen
Jim Stuyck
c.o.o.a's very own, twice elected, kook-of-the-month wrote...
...the same thing twice. Amazing. I've lost count of the number of times
Wedgie Boy pounced on someone for posting the identical newsgroup
article twice.
Jim Stuyck
Dave Tholen
> c.o.o.a's very own, twice elected, kook-of-the-month wrote...
Still having attribution problems, Stuyck (little boy)?
> ....the same thing twice.
Not my problem, Stuyck (little boy).
> Amazing. I've lost count of the number of times Wedgie Boy pounced
> on someone for posting the identical newsgroup article twice.
There's a difference between a person posting twice and a machine
posting twice, Stuyck (little boy).
David Sutherland
wrote:
Hey Tholen, does your employer know how you spend most of their time?
Just curious.
Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)
Marty
>
> Haakmat is now back, which gives me the opportunity to take care of
> some unfinished business from this summer. Here's the latest digest:
>
> 1> strong influence and inspiration to us all. Let's not be childish
> 1> with praise now if the rare occurence arrives to do so. Dave's style
> 1> is infective, viral in it's nature. We can all attest to that. To my
> 1> amusement I find myself applying successfully his technique to
> 1> situations outside Usenet. Apply the chant of "Irrelevant, Incorrect,
> 1> Illogical" and everything dissolves. Very zen. Hoorah for Dave, I hope
> 1> the Usenet posting gives him a frequent laugh.
>
Yup. He chants, "O-wha Tadi kiam"
> 2> I cannot answer the question within digest form. Therefore digest form
> 2> is useless, thereby for my intents and purposes irrelevant.
>
> Digest form is quite useful for my purposes.
Yes, digest form is quite convenient for playing infantile games and avoiding
issues.
> 3> Dave, how have I missed you. It is nice to see Eric Bennett, primus
> 3> inter pares, was pivotal to your belated and much anticipated return
> 3> in csma.
>
> He was not.
Incorrect.
> Marty was pivotal.
On what basis do you make this erroneous claim?
> And I did not "return" to csma.
A semantic argument, as is what you'd expect from someone lacking a logical
argument.
> I simply responded
- irrelevantly -
> to another cross-posted article. THose who start cross-posted threads bring
> this on themselves.
Glad I haven't done such a thing. I'd hate to have to deal with Dave's
infantile "wrath".
Marty
nowhere to be seen in his posting, yet he felt justified in hypocritically
accusing me of lying. A rather dull and typical development in Dave's
infantile game. Here are more issues that Dave is too embarrassed to address
with his excuse for "logic":
Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Truly amazing that Marty started off his posting with a lie. The
> evidence was right there in the first line of his quoted material,
> which was:
>
> ] 1> As if Tholen's idiocy in other threads wasn't enough,
>
> yet he claimed that the article wasn't about me.
Note the lack of evidence. What alleged claim? Which alleged article?
> An interesting development in Marty's "infantile game". Here's today's
> digest:
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Dave.
> 1> Tholen seems to be completely unaware that his "digest" is not a
> 1> response to any articles posted to or about him. As usual, he's
> 1> trying to blame me for something he caused. If we're lucky and I
> 1> call him on the irrelevant cross-posting, he may even pull the old
> 1> "aim at the base of the flames" argument out from retirement. And
> 1> one can only wonder whether his exchanges with Eric Bennett are
> 1> indeirectly part of the "infantile game" the he's been playing on
> 1> me. Here's an abridged digest of valid statements to which Tholen
> 1> had no valid response (the non-abridged version resides in another
> 1> thread in COOA and consists of several thousand lines):
Note: no response
> 1> [Note: Poor Dave appears to be confused, posting statements that
> 1> were not intended for him in this infantile "digest". Just further
> 1> evidence of his nagging reading comprehension problems (as if further
> 1> evidence were needed)]
Note: no response
Marty
Marty
That's proprietary information, David.
Dave Tholen
again by claiming that my evidence was nowhere to be seen, despite the
fact that the evidence was right up there in the introductory text.
His mimicking style is yet more evidence that his "infantile game" is
continuing. Here's today's digest:
1> What alleged "tholenbot wars", tholenbot?
2> Truly amazing that Dave started off his posting with a lie. The
2> evidence was nowhere to be seen in his posting, yet he felt justified
2> in hypocritically accusing me of lying. A rather dull and typical
2> development in Dave's infantile game. Here are more issues that Dave
2> is too embarrassed to address with his excuse for "logic":
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
2> Note the lack of evidence. What alleged claim? Which alleged article?
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
2> I warned you about going down that path, Dave.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
2> Note: no response
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
2> Note: no response
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
3> Truly amazing that Dave started off his posting with a lie. The
3> evidence was nowhere to be seen in his posting, yet he felt justified
3> in hypocritically accusing me of lying. A rather dull and typical
3> development in Dave's infantile game. Here are more issues that Dave
3> is too embarrassed to address with his excuse for "logic":
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
3> Note the lack of evidence. What alleged claim? Which alleged article?
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
3> I warned you about going down that path, Dave.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
3> Note: no response
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
3> Note: no response
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
4> Yup. He chants, "O-wha Tadi kiam"
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
4> Yes, digest form is quite convenient for playing infantile games and
4> avoiding issues.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
4> Incorrect.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
4> On what basis do you make this erroneous claim?
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
4> A semantic argument, as is what you'd expect from someone lacking a
4> logical argument.
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
4> - irrelevantly -
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
4> Glad I haven't done such a thing. I'd hate to have to deal with
4> Dave's infantile "wrath".
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
5> That's proprietary information, David.
On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
Sutherland can be pretty humorous at times. How I spend my time at
work isn't even relevant to this newsgroup.
Dave Tholen
Yes.
1> God knows I never left,
Haven't seen you around here for a while.
1> anxiously awaiting your return.
"'return', Haakmat? God knows I never left."
1> You are such a considerate fine gentleman, Dave. My heart SWELLS
1> with joy that you took the trouble to follow up on some of our,
1> you phrase it so delicately accurate, unfinished business.
I presume you're being facetious.
1> Like a broken clock, I chant endlessly, in the hope of being
1> appropriate at least twice a day.
Do clocks chant?
1> Ah, digest form. It is such a joy to hear you extoll the virtues of
1> digest form. When did you first begin to consider digest form, Dave?
When the complaints about the bandwidth being wasted by the people who
use this newsgroup for entertainment purposes reached critical mass.
1> That's Dave for you, always heedful and alert! Of course you did not
1> "return" to csma, Dave. But I was only being wishful.
More like dishonest.
1> Won't you grant me the illusion that, yes, just maybe, you returned
1> to csma just to continue your unfinished business with me?
Go to Talos IV.
Joe Malloy
of his betters writing and, in a pitiful attempt to make himself look only
obnoxious, has tholened:
> Jim "little boy" Stuyck writes:
Let's see what little.man.tholen has to slime:
> > c.o.o.a's very own, twice elected, kook-of-the-month wrote...
>
> Still having attribution problems, Stuyck (little boy)?
Still having trouble recognizing a reference to yourself, little man Tholen?
> > ....the same thing twice.
>
> Not my problem, Stuyck (little boy).
This is just hilarious, little man! How often has the newsgroup(s) been
subjected to little man Tholen's outcry against one of his many opponents
who has the same problem he's allegedly had but which, according to little
man Tholen, demonstrates the opponent's stupidity! You can't have it both
ways, little man Tholen, and your own claptrap condemns you. You're just as
stupid as you claim others are.
> > Amazing. I've lost count of the number of times Wedgie Boy pounced
> > on someone for posting the identical newsgroup article twice.
>
> There's a difference between a person posting twice and a machine
> posting twice, Stuyck (little boy).
Prove that all other cases of an individual posting twice were not caused by
the same or a similar reason, goofball, if you can, little man Tholen.
Little man Tholen, known for his having been chosen Kook twice over, called
Wedgie Boy and other names, is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Please,
little man Tholen, we don't want your refuse.
Pascal Haakmat
>Haven't seen you around here for a while.
Say no more, old chap, say no more. I missed you too.
>"'return', Haakmat? God knows I never left."
Thank goodness.
>I presume you're being facetious.
Whatever it is you think I'm doing, I hope you like it.
>Do clocks chant?
There you have me again! I keep saying these stupid things and you never
tire of correcting me. That's true friendship.
>When the complaints about the bandwidth being wasted by the people who
>use this newsgroup for entertainment purposes reached critical mass.
As a said, you are a considerate gentleman.
>More like dishonest.
No, really, you are a considerate gentleman.
>Go to Talos IV.
Will you lead the way?
Wolf Kirchmeir
=>Truly amazing that Dave started off his posting with a lie. The evidence was
=>nowhere to be seen in his posting, yet he felt justified in hypocritically
=>accusing me of lying. A rather dull and typical development in Dave's
=>infantile game. Here are more issues that Dave is too embarrassed to address
=>with his excuse for "logic":
=>Dave Tholen wrote:
...snip snip snip snip....
Why do you guys waste bandwidth on this crap. Get a life!
Marty
How ironic, coming from someone who just wasted bandwidth posting the above
"crap". If you desire to make a difference, however, you'd be better advised
to aim your comments at the "base of the flames".
Wolf Kirchmeir
=>How ironic, coming from someone who just wasted bandwidth posting the above
=>"crap". If you desire to make a difference, however, you'd be better advised
=>to aim your comments at the "base of the flames".
Which by this time is lost in the mists of antiquity, so how the hell should
I know?
Well, I've filtered out this thread. If you have comments on other subjects,
I'll be pleased to read them!
Marty
>
> On Fri, 03 Dec 1999 18:26:13 -0500, Marty wrote:
>
> =>How ironic, coming from someone who just wasted bandwidth posting the above
> =>"crap". If you desire to make a difference, however, you'd be better advised
> =>to aim your comments at the "base of the flames".
>
> Which by this time is lost in the mists of antiquity, so how the hell should
> I know?
>
> Well, I've filtered out this thread.
A wise move, for which I commend you.
> If you have comments on other subjects, I'll be pleased to read them!
Thank you for keeping an open mind.
Dave Tholen
> Why do you guys waste bandwidth on this crap. Get a life!
Marty has admitted to playing an "infantile game" in this newsgroup.
He and Eric Bennett entertain themselves here at the expense of other
people. You figure they'll grow out of it eventually.
Eric Bennett
wrote:
No, recently I have primarily entertained myself at the expense of your
pseudo-"Eliza" responses. Is "Eliza" a person, Dave?
Lots of people laugh at folderol. I don't see any reason why one should
"grow out" of that. Particularly when the folderol is as amusing as
yours. Of course, for you, "posting for entertainment purposes" seems
to be the ultimate sin. Which, given that you claim to have a sense of
humor and apparently do not think this is a bad thing... is just more
evidence of your inconsistency.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'.
-Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft