What a load of crap. If Gates was in fact the antichrist, then I might
have reason to like the man. But I don't.
Striving to be,
> From: an2...@anon.penet.fi
> Newsgroups: alt.christnet.religion,alt.religion.christian,
> Subject: New antichrist may be here?
> * Disclaimer: I'm not the author of this message. Please, DO NOT
> * REPLY to me by e-mail or ask for further details.
> Warning! Bill Gates (the president of the Microsoft
> corporation, USA) may be the next antichrist:
> * Revelation 13:18 says:
> * Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the
> * number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His
> * number is 666.
> The real name of the Bill Gates is William Henry Gates III.
> Nowadays he is known as Bill Gates (III), where "III" means
> the order of third (3rd.)
> By converting the letters of his current name to the ASCII-
> values (which are used in computers) you will get the following:
> B I L L G A T E S 3
> 66 + 73 + 76 + 76 + 71 + 65 + 84 + 69 + 83 + 3 = 666
> * Daniel 7:23 says:
> * "Thus he said:
> * 'The fourth beast shall be
> * A fourth kingdom on Earth,
> * Which shall be different from all other kingdoms,
> * And shall devour the whole Earth,
> * Trample it and break it in pieces.
> Current history knows three antichrists:
> - Adolf Hitler
> - Joseph Stalin
> - The Pope
> Is the fourth beast Microsoft corporation which represents
> the power of money?
> * Revelation 13:16 and 13:18 says:
> * He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and
> * slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their
> * foreheads.
> * and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or
> * the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
> "Windows compatible?"
When in doubt, use brute force! [Ken Thompson]
>What a load of crap. If Gates was in fact the antichrist, then I might
>have reason to like the man. But I don't.
I have a reason...despite his bad points and his monopolistic management
he has vowed to donate 90% of his 9 billion fortune to good causes. The
antichrist would do the opposite..
: I have a reason...despite his bad points and his monopolistic management
: he has vowed to donate 90% of his 9 billion fortune to good causes. The
: antichrist would do the opposite..
Vows change. Anyway, he's probably realized that it'd be too hard to
spend his fortune (he probably can't even THINK of enough things to buy)
so why not give some of that extra to "good causes" and get people on his
The antichrist would lie and deceive to get what he wants, so this is not
a strange thing.
// Maxwell Daymon
\\ // mda...@rmii.com
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
Dave Martin - d...@col.hp.com
Not exactly. What he's done is made them *believe* that MS-DOS and
Windoze are the best products to use. That's far worse. He didn't
force anybody -- he deceived them into believing that PCs and
MS-DOS/Windows make an acceptable computing platform.
We, of course, know better. ;-)
The man has become richer than God peddling '80s technology as state of
the art in the '90s. Christ, that galls me!
Of course, this doesn't even resemble what Battelle Memorial Institute
would have to say about the matter. They love their PCs here!
- Dave Cowley
* Björn Lindgren | - Hey Amiga, the Sun is rising ! *
* ^o with dots above | She thoughtfully took a byte in her Apple. *
* be...@solace.mh.se | It had allmost gone a DECade since she heard that *
* A500 T (as in Tower) | the firST time.... *
F> I have a reason...despite his bad points and his monopolistic management
F> he has vowed to donate 90% of his 9 billion fortune to good causes. The
F> antichrist would do the opposite..
Remember that 'good' is a relative concept dependent on the views of the
MVH: Mike Noreen InterNet: rad...@p14.anet.bbs.bad.se
--- Spot 1.3 #989
>Dave Cowley (d3c...@baldrick.pnl.gov) wrote:
>> The man has become richer than God peddling '80s technology as state of
>> the art in the '90s. Christ, that galls me!
>Shouldn't that be "60s technology"?
>There's nothing in MS-DOS that wasn't in the PDPs apart from hierarchial
>directories and VGA support.
That may very well be. I was referring in particular to MS Windows
-- which allowed Gates to become the Saviour of the PC User (TM). My
point simply was that there were implementations of windows interfaces in
the late '80s (e.g. Workbench) that were cleaner and less kludgy than MS
Windows is now.
AmigaDOS and Workbench were designed for windowing and multitasking from
the start, and represent a small and elegant implementation. MS DOS, OTOH,
was never meant to do those things, and Windows is a tacked-on front end
to DOS that allows a GUI and task-switching. The result is a cumbersome
system that has ridiculous RAM and processor requirements, and merely
covers up the warts of DOS. Microsoft should have fnord chucked DOS and
Windows and rebuilt from the ground up five years ago.
- Dave Cowley
(Who's feeling a little more charitable than when he wrote the previous
: Not exactly. What he's done is made them *believe* that MS-DOS and
: Windoze are the best products to use. That's far worse. He didn't
: force anybody -- he deceived them into believing that PCs and
: MS-DOS/Windows make an acceptable computing platform.
: We, of course, know better. ;-)
: The man has become richer than God peddling '80s technology as state of
: the art in the '90s. Christ, that galls me!
Shouldn't that be "60s technology"?
There's nothing in MS-DOS that wasn't in the PDPs apart from hierarchial
directories and VGA support.
Andrew Bulhak a...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
Estimated Usenet time to live: 34 days