Re: Linux? What's that? My own survey.
Peter Köhlmann
< snip flatfish droppings >
You lately nymshifted to
Abbie Diaz, Aftab Singh, Allen Cusimano, Allie Perkins, Allison Juergans,
allison_hunt1969, Ana Thema, Anna Banger, anonymous, Archie, Archie Moss
Bunker, Archie Watermann, Baba Booey, Babu Singh, Bill Thomson,
bill.gates.loves.me, bison, Bjarne Jensen, BklynBoy, bonobo magilla, Boyce
Mabri, BSEE, Buster, Charles LeGrand, Charlie, Choppers McGee, Chris
Thomas, Christine Abernathy, Claire Lynn, Clippy, Collie Entragion, Colon
Singh, common cold, Connie Hines, Corrie, Corrie Titlaand, Cory Dyvik,
Curtis Wilson, dbx_boy, Deadpenguin, Debbie, Devon Dawson, dismoqualifetch,
Donn Carlsbad, Dr.Long John Jones, Elliot Zimmermann, Elwin Winters,
Emmanuel Arias, Fawn Lebowitz, flatfish+++, foamy, frank boson, Franz
Klammer, Fred Simmons, gabriele howorth, Gary Stewart, GayClod, George
Cotton, George Littlefield, Gilbert, Gilbert Goiter, Gilbert Hochaim,
gilligan, Greg Finnigan, Greg Laplante, Hans Kimm, Harry Hilton, Harvey
Fogel, Heather, Heather69, Heather Trax, Heddy Seafield, hepcat, Hugh
Himless, Ishmeal Hafizi, itchy balls, Ivan Mctavish, IvanaB, Jeff Szarka,
Joe Josephson, John, John Shelton, Jorge Jorgensen, Jose Lopez, juke_joint,
kaptain kaput, Karel Olish, Karla Snodgress, kathy_krantz, Kendra, Kenny
Dugan, Kent Dorfman, Kyle Cadet, L Didio, Laura Shillingford, Le Farter, Le
Yammy, Leaking Onion, Les Turner, Leslie Bassman, Lilly, Lindy, Linux
Exposer, Lisa Shavas, Lisa Cottmann, Lois Hunt, Long, long_tong_ling,
Lukumi Babalu Aye, Luna Lane, Major Mynor, Manny, McSwain, Mogumbo, Moses,
Mooshoo Bong Singh, narrows_...@yahoo.com, nate_mcspook, okto_pussy,
organ.creep, OSS KDE User, Paddy McCrockett, Patricia, Patty Poppins,
percy samson, Peter Gluckman, Peter Kohlmann, Phil, Phillip Cornwall,
phoung, phoung quoak, pickle_pete, Piss Clam, Poopy Pants McGee, Quimby,
Quinton Magee, Quizno Backer, Rich, Richard P. Johnson, Richie, Richie
O'Toole, Robert Strunk, rothstein_ivan, Sally Vadi, Sammy, Sammy Whalen,
Saul Goldblatt, Schlomo Smykowski, Sharon Cackle, Sharon Hubbasland, Sean,
Sean Fitzhenry, Sean Macpherson, Sewer Rat, sewer_clown, Sherlock Holmes ,
Simon, sista sledgehammer, slacker.mcspritze, Spammy_Davis, spanny_davis,
Stephan Simonsen, Stephanie Mannerz, Stephen, Stephen Olsen, Stephen
Townshend, SuckyB, SunnyB, Susan Bladder, Susan Lapinski, Susan Wong, Suzie
Wong, Swampee, Ted Bennington, Terri Sorensen, The Beaver, Thorsten,
Thorsten Thigpen, Timmy Luncford , Toby Rastus Roosovelt III, Tomas Bicsak,
Tomas Lucatorto, Tori, Tori Wassermann, Torre Stanslaand, Trace Dennison,
Tracee, Traci, trailerpark, Trina Swallows, Trolly, Trudi Simpkins, Tryxie
Lustern, Uday Shankar, victimizedb, victimizedbyms, Vince Fontain, Vladimir
Yepifano, Walter Bubniak, Wang Mycock, Wasser, Wendy Duzz, Whizzer, Wilbur
J, willy watkins jr, Willy Wong, Winnie Septos, Wobbles, Yanick Schmuley
and zyklon_C.
Plus many, many, many more.
--
It's sweet to be remembered, but it's often cheaper to be forgotten.
Cyberwasteland
Thorsten Thigpen wrote:
> I'm a CD professional
<snip>
You're a Cock-Diver? For money?
Can we read all about it in your "soon-to-be-released autobiography?"
Certain to be a smash hit with Oprah's support...
oh, wait, you probably haven't heard of her either.
Larry Qualig
So do you or don't you have any facts that contradict him? Or is your
defense simply name calling?
zara
"Cyberwasteland" <brain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141434490.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I'm guessing that you're a Linux lover - good for you - many smart people
believe it's a superior OS. Most likely it is. Most people don't want to
sit at a keyboard and fuck around for hours. To them, Windows is easy to
use and does everything they want. Then there are the maccies. The OS X
operating system is quite limited, but because it's expensive, they think
it's "superior".
zara
"Thorsten Thigpen" <thorsten...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tC5Of.1010$s53...@fe12.lga...
> I'm a CD professional and have been for 23 years and counting. I have seen
> many systems come and go, Geos, Xerox GEM, OS/2, Desqview and so forth.
> So now the new kid on the block seems to be Linux.
> Personally, I think Linux is pretty kool stuff, but the practical side of
> me says that bobody has even heard about Linux, let alone cares about it.
>
> So last week I find myself in NYC and 4 hours early for a meeting with a
> client.
> So being the inquisitive person that I am, I drag out my notepad and
> proceed to to take a survey of people entering and exiting the cafe shop I
> have planted myself in for the next 2 or 3 hours.
>
> Bottom line is I polled over 300 people in 3 hours, 312 to be exact, and
> the poll was very simple.
>
> One question "have you ever heard of Linux", nothing more nothing less.
>
> Result was 99.4 percent had never heard of Linux.
>
> This is at 48th street and Broadway in NYC, right in the heart of the
> business world of the USA.
>
> Pitiful, but maybe it's just an affirmatation that people just don't care
> about Linux because they already have Windows.
>
> As a check, I asked some of the people if they had ever heard of Windows
> and 100 percent said yes.
>
> So where does that leave pigs knuckle Ak. ?
>
> Face the facts, Linux is not known about, not cared for and not even a
> spec on the average persons radar map.
> IOW Linux is a dead end.
>
> Don't believe it?
>
> Set up shop in any mall in the USA on a Sat morning and try the experiment
> yourself.
Did you ask about mac?
Kier
> I'm a CD professional and have been for 23 years and counting. I have seen
> many systems come and go, Geos, Xerox GEM, OS/2, Desqview and so forth.
> So now the new kid on the block seems to be Linux.
Not so very new - it's been around for fourteen years.
> Personally, I think Linux is pretty kool stuff, but the practical side of
> me says that bobody has even heard about Linux, let alone cares about it.
I've heard of it, my brother has, several workmates, a number of e-pals of
mine. A mailing list admin on a list I was on some years ago used to
reccommend it way above Windows. It's all over the place.
>
> So last week I find myself in NYC and 4 hours early for a meeting with a
> client.
> So being the inquisitive person that I am, I drag out my notepad and
> proceed to to take a survey of people entering and exiting the cafe shop I
> have planted myself in for the next 2 or 3 hours.
>
> Bottom line is I polled over 300 people in 3 hours, 312 to be exact, and
> the poll was very simple.
>
> One question "have you ever heard of Linux", nothing more nothing less.
>
> Result was 99.4 percent had never heard of Linux.
>
> This is at 48th street and Broadway in NYC, right in the heart of the
> business world of the USA.
>
> Pitiful, but maybe it's just an affirmatation that people just don't care
> about Linux because they already have Windows.
Pitiful is certainly what this nonsense you are writing is.
>
> As a check, I asked some of the people if they had ever heard of Windows
> and 100 percent said yes.
Quelle surprise.
>
> So where does that leave pigs knuckle Ak. ?
>
> Face the facts, Linux is not known about, not cared for and not even a
> spec on the average persons radar map.
First you have to produce facts. You have nothing to back up what you
have said, and it's clearly meaningless. You are making unwarranted
assumptions.
> IOW Linux is a dead end.
Of course it isn't. If Linux is a dead end, how come MS is getting so
worked up about it?
>
> Don't believe it?
No, actually I don't. Why? Because Linux has been written about (perhaps
not extensively, but quite frequently) in the Sunday Times newspaper, a
conservative Sunday paper well-known in the United Kingdom. I have a
workmate, as average a type as you'll meet (and we work in a factory, not
in IT), he knows about Linux. I have friends and family members who know
about it. It's all over the internet. Hell, it *runs* a large chunk of the
internet. It even gets into mainstream computer magazines normally devoted
to Windows.
Oh, and by the way, why have you cross-posted this to a MAC group?
--
Kier
Roy Culley
<pan.2006.03.04....@tiscali.co.uk>,> [snip]
> Oh, and by the way, why have you cross-posted this to a MAC group?
Great troll feeding Kier. You have no peer.
Bobbie
exclaimed the following:
> I'm a CD professional and have been for 23 years and counting. I have seen
> many systems come and go, Geos, Xerox GEM, OS/2, Desqview and so forth.
> So now the new kid on the block seems to be Linux.
> Personally, I think Linux is pretty kool stuff, but the practical side of
> me says that bobody has even heard about Linux, let alone cares about it.
>
> So last week I find myself in NYC and 4 hours early for a meeting with a
> client.
> So being the inquisitive person that I am, I drag out my notepad and
> proceed to to take a survey of people entering and exiting the cafe shop I
> have planted myself in for the next 2 or 3 hours.
>
> Bottom line is I polled over 300 people in 3 hours, 312 to be exact, and
> the poll was very simple.
>
> One question "have you ever heard of Linux", nothing more nothing less.
>
> Result was 99.4 percent had never heard of Linux.
>
> This is at 48th street and Broadway in NYC, right in the heart of the
> business world of the USA.
>
Try this.
Go back to the same cafe shop and ask 300 people if they've ever heard
of Maurice Ravel. Then ask the same three hundred people if they've ever
heard of Britney Spears.
Using your logic and because almost everyone will have heard of Britney
Spears and almost no one will have heard of Maurice Ravel you could
rightfully assert that Britney is a musical prodigy and Maurice is some
two bit hack writer.
> Pitiful, but maybe it's just an affirmatation that people just don't care
> about Linux because they already have Windows.
>
And like any good pollster you obviously asked prequalifying questions to
make sure that those answering your poll weren't biased towards either OS?
--
Bobbie the Triple Killer is at http://members.shaw.ca/bobbie4/index.htm
Today's posting comes via the numbers 0 & 1, Suse 10.0 and Pan Newsreader.
http://www.opensuse.org/Download
Liam Slider
> Don't believe it?
Of course not Flatfish.
Kier
> While dancing and signing to Enya's Carribean Blue, Thorsten Thigpen,
> exclaimed the following:
<snip>
>
>> Bottom line is I polled over 300 people in 3 hours, 312 to be exact, and
>> the poll was very simple.
>>
>> One question "have you ever heard of Linux", nothing more nothing less.
>>
>> Result was 99.4 percent had never heard of Linux.
>>
>> This is at 48th street and Broadway in NYC, right in the heart of the
>> business world of the USA.
>>
>
>
> Try this.
> Go back to the same cafe shop and ask 300 people if they've ever heard
> of Maurice Ravel. Then ask the same three hundred people if they've ever
> heard of Britney Spears.
> Using your logic and because almost everyone will have heard of Britney
> Spears and almost no one will have heard of Maurice Ravel you could
> rightfully assert that Britney is a musical prodigy and Maurice is some
> two bit hack writer.
Nice one, Bobbie! Spot on.
>
>> Pitiful, but maybe it's just an affirmatation that people just don't care
>> about Linux because they already have Windows.
>>
>
> And like any good pollster you obviously asked prequalifying questions to
> make sure that those answering your poll weren't biased towards either OS?
I'm reminded of an episode of 'Yes, Minister', where Sir Humphrey
demonstrated how easy it is to skew the results of a poll, merely by the
way the you ask the questions.
--
Kier
Roy Schestowitz
It's a fake post. Peter has already confirmed it by the headers, which point
to the same trouble maker. If the OP was wise enough to name a number other
than 99.4% (i.e. ~2 out of 300 people heard of Linux), maybe it would be
more believable. Crossposting is another indication of /flashfishism/.
Ignore and move on to the next message.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "My signature is never intended to be offensive"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:25am up 2 days 23:03, 10 users, load average: 1.04, 0.66, 0.52
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Timberwoof
Thorsten Thigpen <thorsten...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Face the facts, Linux is not known about, not cared for and not even a
> spec on the average persons radar map.
I'll accept this.
> IOW Linux is a dead end.
But I don't accept this conclusion. I bet that a similar number of people have
never heard of Cisco Systems or could explain what they do. Do you think that
networking is a dead end?
Talk to sysadmins or people in the software industry and ask them what they've
heard of and you'll get vastly different responses.
I don't care if my customers have never heard of Linux; I'll build a cool
handheld media player with Linux and sell it to them anyway. Linux? They don't
know and they don't care and I don't care that they don't know.
(I do hope that this will get me back into the good graces of some Linux
proponents around here. };-)
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Bobbie
the following:
Oh,oh.
What did you do to get out of the good graces?
Cyberwasteland
Some idiot troll posts some supposed "survey results," claims Linux is
dead, and you bitch at *me* about facts? If you find his BS credible, I
just feel sorry for you, Larry.
Do *you* know about Linux? Do *you* believe Linux is dead? His
statements are impugned by the simple fact that he posted here...
obviously people are aware of Linux and obviously people *do* care
about it. How's that for a fact, Larry?
He obviously didn't talk to anyone buying coffee near the Microsoft
campus, or HP, IBM, Dell, Sun, Barracuda, F5 Networks, Cymphonix,
etc... etc.
I digress...
A stupid troll posting in COLA is just that and certainly doesn't
deserve my respect.
I'm surprised it earned yours.
Bobbie
following:
> On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 03:11:36 +0000, Bobbie wrote:
>
>> While dancing and signing to Enya's Carribean Blue, Thorsten Thigpen,
>> exclaimed the following:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>> Bottom line is I polled over 300 people in 3 hours, 312 to be exact, and
>>> the poll was very simple.
>>>
>>> One question "have you ever heard of Linux", nothing more nothing less.
>>>
>>> Result was 99.4 percent had never heard of Linux.
>>>
>>> This is at 48th street and Broadway in NYC, right in the heart of the
>>> business world of the USA.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Try this.
>> Go back to the same cafe shop and ask 300 people if they've ever heard
>> of Maurice Ravel. Then ask the same three hundred people if they've ever
>> heard of Britney Spears.
>> Using your logic and because almost everyone will have heard of Britney
>> Spears and almost no one will have heard of Maurice Ravel you could
>> rightfully assert that Britney is a musical prodigy and Maurice is some
>> two bit hack writer.
>
> Nice one, Bobbie! Spot on.
>
You should have seen the polls that were coming out during the
Canadian federal election last month. If you took all of the polls at face
value then all four serious contenders should have formed the majority.
>>
>>> Pitiful, but maybe it's just an affirmatation that people just don't care
>>> about Linux because they already have Windows.
>>>
>>
>> And like any good pollster you obviously asked prequalifying questions to
>> make sure that those answering your poll weren't biased towards either OS?
>
> I'm reminded of an episode of 'Yes, Minister', where Sir Humphrey
> demonstrated how easy it is to skew the results of a poll, merely by the
> way the you ask the questions.
Too true.
Here's a simple question being asked in three different manners all
designed to obtain the desired response.
Do you favour a switch from petroleum based fuels to hydrogen based fuels?
vs.
Petroleum based fuels cause cancer, birth defects and ruin the
environment. Hydrogen based fuels are created from the lifeblood of Mother
Nature. Which fuel should government support.
vs.
Petroleum based fuels are the fuel of our economic engine. Petroleum fuel
production and distribution employs millions of people. Hydrogen fuel on
the other hand is untested and has caused the destruction of the
Hindenburg and the space shuttle Challenger. Do you support petroleum or
hydrogen?
Brad
> I'm a CD professional and have been for 23 years and counting. I have seen
> many systems come and go, Geos, Xerox GEM, OS/2, Desqview and so forth.
> So now the new kid on the block seems to be Linux.
> Personally, I think Linux is pretty kool stuff, but the practical side of
> me says that bobody has even heard about Linux, let alone cares about it.
>
> So last week I find myself in NYC and 4 hours early for a meeting with a
> client.
> So being the inquisitive person that I am, I drag out my notepad and
> proceed to to take a survey of people entering and exiting the cafe shop I
> have planted myself in for the next 2 or 3 hours.
>
> Bottom line is I polled over 300 people in 3 hours, 312 to be exact, and
> the poll was very simple.
>
> One question "have you ever heard of Linux", nothing more nothing less.
>
> Result was 99.4 percent had never heard of Linux.
>
> This is at 48th street and Broadway in NYC, right in the heart of the
> business world of the USA.
>
> Pitiful, but maybe it's just an affirmatation that people just don't care
> about Linux because they already have Windows.
>
> As a check, I asked some of the people if they had ever heard of Windows
> and 100 percent said yes.
>
> So where does that leave pigs knuckle Ak. ?
>
> Face the facts, Linux is not known about, not cared for and not even a
> spec on the average persons radar map.
> IOW Linux is a dead end.
>
> Don't believe it?
>
> Set up shop in any mall in the USA on a Sat morning and try the experiment
> yourself.
I believe that this is about the worst attempt at trolling I have seen in
awhile. Maybe next time.
Brad
Larry Qualig
The post didn't get my "respect" but a part of it is a thought
provoking in a way. What percentage of the general public do know about
Linux? The notion that Linux is dead or nobody cares about it is
certainly nonsense but what percentage of the general public have heard
of Linux? Regardless of whether this is flatfish or not this question
is still a valid one IMO.
Often someone (flatfish-ish type individual) will make a post like this
and nobody seems to address any of the points. Instead the entire
thread spins off into never-never land. Aren't questions like "what
percentage of people have heard of Linux" supposed to be the topic
here? Perhaps we may not like the poster who asks the question but the
question still stands. Other far less relevant questions have gotten
"thread time" so why not this one?
Timberwoof
wrote:
> While dancing and signing to Enya's Carribean Blue, Timberwoof, exclaimed the
> following:
Hey, Bobbie, I like that quote intro string. :-) Just take out that second
comma. (And you can remove "the following," too.)
I think it should read,
While dancing and signing to Enya's Carribean Blue, Timberwoof exclaimed:
> > In article <tC5Of.1010$s53...@fe12.lga>,
> > Thorsten Thigpen <thorsten...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Face the facts, Linux is not known about, not cared for and not even a
> >> spec on the average persons radar map.
> >
> > I'll accept this.
> >
> >> IOW Linux is a dead end.
> >
> > But I don't accept this conclusion. I bet that a similar number of people
> > have never heard of Cisco Systems or could explain what they do. Do you
> > think that networking is a dead end?
> >
> > Talk to sysadmins or people in the software industry and ask them what
> > they've heard of and you'll get vastly different responses.
> >
> > I don't care if my customers have never heard of Linux; I'll build a cool
> > handheld media player with Linux and sell it to them anyway. Linux? They
> > don't know and they don't care and I don't care that they don't know.
> >
> > (I do hope that this will get me back into the good graces of some Linux
> > proponents around here. };-)
>
> Oh,oh. What did you do to get out of the good graces?
I said that Linux makes a great server and a great development machine for
engineers, but isn't so hot for everybody else; I said that OS X is a BSD os;
and I said that OS X is better than Linux as workstation or desktop.
Bobbie
> In article <pan.2006.03.04....@shaw.ca>, Bobbie <bob...@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> While dancing and signing to Enya's Carribean Blue, Timberwoof, exclaimed the
>> following:
>
> Hey, Bobbie, I like that quote intro string. :-) Just take out that second
> comma. (And you can remove "the following," too.)
>
> I think it should read,
>
> While dancing and signing to Enya's Carribean Blue, Timberwoof exclaimed:
>
Grammar correction noted.
>> > In article <tC5Of.1010$s53...@fe12.lga>,
>> > Thorsten Thigpen <thorsten...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Face the facts, Linux is not known about, not cared for and not even a
>> >> spec on the average persons radar map.
>> >
>> > I'll accept this.
>> >
>> >> IOW Linux is a dead end.
>> >
>> > But I don't accept this conclusion. I bet that a similar number of people
>> > have never heard of Cisco Systems or could explain what they do. Do you
>> > think that networking is a dead end?
>> >
>> > Talk to sysadmins or people in the software industry and ask them what
>> > they've heard of and you'll get vastly different responses.
>> >
>> > I don't care if my customers have never heard of Linux; I'll build a cool
>> > handheld media player with Linux and sell it to them anyway. Linux? They
>> > don't know and they don't care and I don't care that they don't know.
>> >
>> > (I do hope that this will get me back into the good graces of some Linux
>> > proponents around here. };-)
>>
>> Oh,oh. What did you do to get out of the good graces?
>
> I said that Linux makes a great server and a great development machine for
> engineers, but isn't so hot for everybody else; I said that OS X is a BSD os;
> and I said that OS X is better than Linux as workstation or desktop.
That's it?
I guess that some around here are a little on the thin skinned side.
jeff.sar...@gmail.com
OSX. I've become very curious about the whole Open Source world, but I
am realizing that Linux is just too much of a time-suck at this point.
I think our next computer will be anoth Mac laptop of some sort.
I dig Firefox & Thunderbird. Open Office kind of bugs me sometimes, but
I like using it. So, for now, I will leave Linux to the engineers.
Damn it Jim, I'm a poet not a code writer.
Tattoo Vampire
shotgunned a beer and wrote:
> Bottom line is I polled over 300 people in 3 hours, 312 to be exact, and
> the poll was very simple.
Stupid lying fucksnot.
--
Regards,
[tv]
...Good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgment.
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
Bobbie wrote:
>>> Oh,oh. What did you do to get out of the good graces?
>>
>> I said that Linux makes a great server and a great development
>> machine for engineers, but isn't so hot for everybody else; I said
>> that OS X is a BSD os; and I said that OS X is better than Linux as
>> workstation or desktop.
>
> That's it? I guess that some around here are a little on the thin
> skinned side.
Well, in all fairness, it's a pretty stupid statement to post to COLA.
A bit like going to a biker bar and trying to convince everyone that
driving a car is much easier and more comfortable. Pointless and not
good judgment. A *lot* of people have no trouble using Linux as a
workstation and a desktop (even non-technical people, like my parents),
so OSX would offer nothing more, except a more expensive hardware
platform and OS.
Also, claiming that OSX is a BSD is factually incorrect, so no wonder he
got slapped down. The OSX and BSD kernels do share some ancestry, but
claiming that it's a BSD kernel is like claiming that Windows XP is
DOS-based. The two are simply too different to be considered as one
(their architectures have diverged a lot). Apart from that, the only
things OSX and BSD share are some of the user-space applications, though
not the ones a typical OSX user will be using.
I suspect he's just bitter because Linux market-share overtook OSX
market share some time ago ... :-)
[Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFECW/Jd1ZThqotgfgRAsOsAJ0fGNOVSgaDYTCIj0sW0mHq9+wTbwCdHPrX
Vgd0eTgTqFi8DvNgA9uR9LE=
=wvvQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
Bower's Law:
Talent goes where the action is.
amosf © Tim Fairchild
> I'm a CD professional and have been for 23 years and counting. I have seen
> many systems come and go, Geos, Xerox GEM, OS/2, Desqview and so forth.
> So now the new kid on the block seems to be Linux.
> Personally, I think Linux is pretty kool stuff, but the practical side of
> me says that bobody has even heard about Linux, let alone cares about it.
>
> So last week I find myself in NYC and 4 hours early for a meeting with a
> client.
> So being the inquisitive person that I am, I drag out my notepad and
> proceed to to take a survey of people entering and exiting the cafe shop I
> have planted myself in for the next 2 or 3 hours.
>
> Bottom line is I polled over 300 people in 3 hours, 312 to be exact, and
> the poll was very simple.
>
> One question "have you ever heard of Linux", nothing more nothing less.
>
> Result was 99.4 percent had never heard of Linux.
So 1.87 people had heard of linux out of 312? So was it 1 person or 2 people
that had heard of linux :)
And 300 people in 3 hours? Wow. That was some mighty quick troll fishing...
Snit
44096fce$0$84012$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk on 3/4/06 3:45 AM:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bobbie wrote:
>
>>>> Oh,oh. What did you do to get out of the good graces?
>>>
>>> I said that Linux makes a great server and a great development
>>> machine for engineers, but isn't so hot for everybody else; I said
>>> that OS X is a BSD os; and I said that OS X is better than Linux as
>>> workstation or desktop.
>>
>> That's it? I guess that some around here are a little on the thin
>> skinned side.
>
> Well, in all fairness, it's a pretty stupid statement to post to COLA.
> A bit like going to a biker bar and trying to convince everyone that
> driving a car is much easier and more comfortable. Pointless and not
> good judgment. A *lot* of people have no trouble using Linux as a
> workstation and a desktop (even non-technical people, like my parents),
> so OSX would offer nothing more, except a more expensive hardware
> platform and OS.
I look forward to seeing you support this. In many cases OS X *would* offer
something more.
>
> Also, claiming that OSX is a BSD is factually incorrect, so no wonder he
> got slapped down.
OS X is partially based on FreeBSD, but I would agree that he is incorrect.
> The OSX and BSD kernels do share some ancestry, but
> claiming that it's a BSD kernel is like claiming that Windows XP is
> DOS-based. The two are simply too different to be considered as one
> (their architectures have diverged a lot). Apart from that, the only
> things OSX and BSD share are some of the user-space applications, though
> not the ones a typical OSX user will be using.
>
> I suspect he's just bitter because Linux market-share overtook OSX
> market share some time ago ... :-)
I look forward to seeing the evidence of this, as well.
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
Snit wrote:
>> Well, in all fairness, it's a pretty stupid statement to post to
>> COLA. A bit like going to a biker bar and trying to convince
>> everyone that driving a car is much easier and more comfortable.
>> Pointless and not good judgment. A *lot* of people have no trouble
>> using Linux as a workstation and a desktop (even non-technical
>> people, like my parents), so OSX would offer nothing more, except a
>> more expensive hardware platform and OS.
>
> I look forward to seeing you support this. In many cases OS X *would*
> offer something more.
Like what? Their Linux platform offers my parents exactly what they
need. I'd bet you couldn't name a single thing that OSX could offer
them that is even remotely worth it. While you're at it, what could OSX
offer me (who is also exclusively using Linux as my workstation/desktop
OS)?
>> Also, claiming that OSX is a BSD is factually incorrect, so no wonder
>> he got slapped down.
>
> OS X is partially based on FreeBSD, but I would agree that he is
> incorrect.
The OSX kernel was forked from a BSD, but much has been changed. I
doubt it qualifies as a BSD any more.
>> The OSX and BSD kernels do share some ancestry, but claiming that
>> it's a BSD kernel is like claiming that Windows XP is DOS-based. The
>> two are simply too different to be considered as one (their
>> architectures have diverged a lot). Apart from that, the only things
>> OSX and BSD share are some of the user-space applications, though not
>> the ones a typical OSX user will be using.
>>
>> I suspect he's just bitter because Linux market-share overtook OSX
>> market share some time ago ... :-)
>
> I look forward to seeing the evidence of this, as well.
Been a while since I saw where it was stated, but I think it was one of
the big market-analysts. Maybe someone will remember and post a link to
the report. Still, it doesn't sound unlikely at all, given that Linux
is extremely popular in markets that OSX has no chance in (e.g.
servers). Also remember the inherent difficulty in accurately measuring
the market share of something that can be downloaded for free and passed
around.
[Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFECazyd1ZThqotgfgRAi2sAJ40IOlcFZVLHkg6QJOSs0TY/8FZmQCgrsAm
y6fCfhG94KYLIaUQhvUyqWM=
=BdKy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
Microsoft products are easy to administrate. Anyone can do it!
Even if you don't want them to ... -- Jim Richardson, in COLA
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 07:47:55 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> Well, in all fairness, it's a pretty stupid statement to post to COLA.
>> A bit like going to a biker bar and trying to convince everyone that
>> driving a car is much easier and more comfortable. Pointless and not
>> good judgment. A *lot* of people have no trouble using Linux as a
>> workstation and a desktop (even non-technical people, like my parents),
>> so OSX would offer nothing more, except a more expensive hardware
>> platform and OS.
>
> I look forward to seeing you support this. In many cases OS X *would* offer
> something more.
That's what they say about Windows, too. Saying it, however, doesn't make
it true.
--
MS, because work should be measured by effort, rather than result.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> I'm a CD professional
Okay, so you wear women's clothes. We should care why?
> Personally, I think Linux is pretty kool stuff, but the practical side of
> me says that bobody has even heard about Linux, let alone cares about it.
Since your ability to count to even one seems to be non-existent, this
would, in fact, be an obvious conclusion on your part. Hint: in COLA
alone, there are several people who have heard about it and care about it.
Since "nobody" means zero people, and there is, in fact, at least one
person - me - this means you can only reach your conclusion by being
unable to count to one.
Nice of you to show the entire world exactly how incapable you are.
> Bottom line is I polled over 300 people in 3 hours, 312 to be exact, and
> the poll was very simple.
>
> One question "have you ever heard of Linux", nothing more nothing less.
>
> Result was 99.4 percent had never heard of Linux.
X percent of Y is Y percent of X. 99.4 percent of 312 is 312 percent of
99.4. 3.12 * 99.4 is... 310.128.
One wonders how you polled .128 of a person - chop off their head, dispose
of the body and then ask the now-decaying head? Seems about as meaningful
as anything else you say.
> As a check, I asked some of the people if they had ever heard of Windows
> and 100 percent said yes.
Golly gee. They've heard of an OS which has been backed by a multimillion
dollar advertising campaign. Imagine that.
> Face the facts, Linux is not known about, not cared for and not even a
> spec on the average persons radar map. IOW Linux is a dead end.
Feel free to believe that.
Meanwhile, I'm rolling out a server farm. To give a simple idea of what's
involved, each primary server is backed up by a redundant secondary, plus
there are backend servers for things such as monitoring and reporting.
Currently, they're all being deployed with Linux. Why? Simple: cost and
flexibility.
Take as an example the first set of servers to be deployed: router, dhcp,
dns, web, email and logging/reporting. With backup servers, we're
talking 8 machines.
At current MS prices, depending on how we deploy, we're talking anywhere
from about $12,000 to almost a quarter million - the latter assuming we
use Exchange to handle customer emails, with a CAL per user.
Now, whether it's a quarter mil, or whether it's $12,000, the fact
remains, that's money out of pocket for *zero* actual benefit.
That's right, zero. Nada. Nil. We can *already* run mail, web, DB and
whatever other servers we need - we *are* already running them. Without
needing to pay a penny to MS.
So why pay even $12,000 to be able to do something we're *already* doing,
without paying a cent extra?
Of course, this doesn't begin to address the sheer loss in flexibility.
For example, I can do a live clone of the existing mailer's configuration
and user base - and email store - simply by copying a few files. Voila; I
have an instant new mail server, say for testing purposes. Can't do that
with MS tools, and even if you could, you'd still have to buy another
server OS license and another mail server license. Just to get what I get
now, already, without paying those licenses.
You like Windows? Fine; feel free to go use it. I'll take the extra
cash - anything from 12 grand to a quarter mil - and use it to buy new
server *hardware* to expand and support more customers.
ray
fluorescent bulbs. So what is your point?
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> I said that Linux makes a great server and a great development machine for
> engineers, but isn't so hot for everybody else; I said that OS X is a BSD os;
> and I said that OS X is better than Linux as workstation or desktop.
my experience, workstations were more often high-end Unix systems,
used for doing engineering work and software development and so on.
Linux fits quite nicely into that roll.
As for the 'desktop' argument, if I read that as 'consumer desktop'
I might agree with you, but even that is becoming less certain. It
really depends on what the user needs their computer to do. I use
my Linux worstation to edit documents and spreadsheets, read email,
surf the web, listen to music, watch movies, and more. I do the
same things on my Mac also... and it is not really all that
different. What exactly is it about Linux that makes it a bad
desktop in your opinion?
Thad
Timberwoof
wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Timberwoof <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> >
> > I said that Linux makes a great server and a great development machine for
> > engineers, but isn't so hot for everybody else; I said that OS X is a BSD
> > os;
> > and I said that OS X is better than Linux as workstation or desktop.
>
> You must have a different definition of 'workstation' than I do. In
> my experience, workstations were more often high-end Unix systems,
> used for doing engineering work and software development and so on.
> Linux fits quite nicely into that roll.
'role'
All righty; there can never an argument over definitions. In that case, Linux
makes a dandy workstation ... and so does OS X, according to all those
scientists at JPL. :-)
> As for the 'desktop' argument, if I read that as 'consumer desktop'
> I might agree with you, but even that is becoming less certain. It
> really depends on what the user needs their computer to do. I use
> my Linux worstation to edit documents and spreadsheets, read email,
> surf the web, listen to music, watch movies, and more. I do the
> same things on my Mac also... and it is not really all that
> different. What exactly is it about Linux that makes it a bad
> desktop in your opinion?
I base my observations on Red Hat Fedora Core 4. I think the UI is clunky and
the Start menu is everything and the kitchen sink thrown in together in one big
jumble. As long as the users have a patient sysadmin to set the systems up for
them, there would be no problem. But as acting IT guy where I work, I know the
kinds of problems people would have it, and no, thank you: I don't want that
job.
Snit
stated in post dudjlm$p1c$1...@tux.glaci.com on 3/4/06 7:50 PM:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Timberwoof <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
>>
>> I said that Linux makes a great server and a great development machine for
>> engineers, but isn't so hot for everybody else; I said that OS X is a BSD os;
>> and I said that OS X is better than Linux as workstation or desktop.
>
> You must have a different definition of 'workstation' than I do. In
> my experience, workstations were more often high-end Unix systems,
> used for doing engineering work and software development and so on.
> Linux fits quite nicely into that roll.
>
> As for the 'desktop' argument, if I read that as 'consumer desktop'
> I might agree with you, but even that is becoming less certain. It
> really depends on what the user needs their computer to do. I use
> my Linux worstation to edit documents and spreadsheets, read email,
> surf the web, listen to music, watch movies, and more. I do the
> same things on my Mac also... and it is not really all that
> different. What exactly is it about Linux that makes it a bad
> desktop in your opinion?
One road block to getting Linux to the desktop is the philosophy of
Linux and many of the open source programs: just because a feature
*can* be added does not mean that it should be added to every program.
Apple does this right: they have basic features the average person
would need in consumer products and then more advanced features in
professional products. Is there a consumer / pro split of any note in
Linux software? How does a novice know what software is targeted for
them? When faced with "Pro" software a novice or non-techie is not
able to get work done.
This is not just within applications; How does a novice know if they
should be using KDE, GNOME, or one of the other environments? How do
they know what distro to get? How do they know which media player to
use?
What I repeatedly see in the COLA is someone asking a question and then
being criticized for using the wrong distro or wrong program or having
the wrong settings. If you want Feature A you should use Ubuntu with
such and such program, but if you want Feature B you should use SUSE
with a different program. And if you have dependency problems you must
be a troll!
There is no way the average user is going to tolerate this mess. Yes,
I know: they tolerate the mess that is called XP. That does not mean
they will be willing to venture out to the unknown mess and stand there
alone.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>> Linux fits quite nicely into that roll.
>
> 'role'
:-P
> All righty; there can never an argument over definitions. In that case, Linux
> makes a dandy workstation ... and so does OS X, according to all those
> scientists at JPL. :-)
No arguments here; I suppose any system on which you perform work could
be considered a workstation... and who am I to argue with JPL. Heck, my
favorite t-shirt is a Jet Propulsion Laboratories Hiking Club shirt.
> I base my observations on Red Hat Fedora Core 4. I think the UI is clunky and
> the Start menu is everything and the kitchen sink thrown in together in one big
> jumble. As long as the users have a patient sysadmin to set the systems up for
> them, there would be no problem. But as acting IT guy where I work, I know the
> kinds of problems people would have it, and no, thank you: I don't want that
> job.
Apple definitely has experience designing intuitive interfaces, and Red
Hat certainly leans more toward the server side than the desktop, so I
see your point... but that is only one distro; others are more desktop
oriented. The trick to making a decent Linux desktop distro (as I see
it) is to trim down the apps and functionality to what is most polished
and useful, organize the menus so that the common tasks are easily accessed
through icons or top level menus, and then bury all the bleeding edge
apps and advance features further down. Some distros already do this
better than others. Ultimately, the darwinistic nature of Linux
development will reveal which distros are getting it right, and the
Linux desktop experience will continue to evolve and improve. In the
mean time, it makes a plenty fine desktop for me.
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> One road block to getting Linux to the desktop is the philosophy of
> Linux and many of the open source programs: just because a feature
> *can* be added does not mean that it should be added to every program.
> Apple does this right: they have basic features the average person
> would need in consumer products and then more advanced features in
> professional products. Is there a consumer / pro split of any note in
> Linux software? How does a novice know what software is targeted for
> them? When faced with "Pro" software a novice or non-techie is not
> able to get work done.
>
> This is not just within applications; How does a novice know if they
> should be using KDE, GNOME, or one of the other environments? How do
> they know what distro to get? How do they know which media player to
> use?
answer in an earlier post. Linux's strength among the geek crowd
becomes something of a weakness among the newbie set. All that
freedom and choice and experimentation leads to a lot of great
innovation and new software, but it can also lead to a lot of
confusion for the new user. New desktop oriented distros attempt
to filter and organize the choices to make Linux more approachable,
but then even the variety of distros adds a level of confusion.
Ultimately, this will all get sorted out in the marketplace of
ideas. If a distro is too confusing for the newbie set, it will
simply not catch on and will die on the vine. A distro that gets
it right will be recommended to friends, find a following, and
succeed. It is a microcosm of how Linux itself grew. It is
darwanism in action... only the solution that really works will
survive and replicate. Linux's ability to be customized, built
upon, and repackaged as a new distros is the critical 'mutation'
component that assures a viable desktop strain will emerge.
> What I repeatedly see in the COLA is someone asking a question and then
> being criticized for using the wrong distro or wrong program or having
> the wrong settings. If you want Feature A you should use Ubuntu with
> such and such program, but if you want Feature B you should use SUSE
> with a different program. And if you have dependency problems you must
> be a troll!
You make the mistake of thinking advocacy groups are about advocacy,
they are not. They really exist as a troll sink, something to keep
the tech and dev groups safe and vermin free.
You think I am joking, but this is really the case. I remember the
usenet discussion and voting that created many of the advocacy groups.
It was prompted by the growing annoyance at pointless flame wars. It
was a conscious effort to partition the groups and isolate the damage.
> There is no way the average user is going to tolerate this mess. Yes,
> I know: they tolerate the mess that is called XP. That does not mean
> they will be willing to venture out to the unknown mess and stand there
> alone.
A few brave early adopters already are, and more will join them as
the distros are refined, more app vendors jump on board, more hardware
vendors support Linux, etc. The momentum is there and is steadily
building. Every years is the long awaited 'Year of the Linux Desktop';
it's happening in increments.
Thad
Snit
in post due1i8$r4r$1...@tux.glaci.com on 3/4/06 11:47 PM:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Timberwoof <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
>>> Linux fits quite nicely into that roll.
>>
>> 'role'
>
> Uhm, you mean you haven't heard about Linux being ported to small pastries?
> :-P
Would explain why it is so often sugar coated. :)
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
_________________________________________
Snit
in post due3gt$rnb$1...@tux.glaci.com on 3/5/06 12:21 AM:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> One road block to getting Linux to the desktop is the philosophy of
>> Linux and many of the open source programs: just because a feature
>> *can* be added does not mean that it should be added to every program.
>> Apple does this right: they have basic features the average person
>> would need in consumer products and then more advanced features in
>> professional products. Is there a consumer / pro split of any note in
>> Linux software? How does a novice know what software is targeted for
>> them? When faced with "Pro" software a novice or non-techie is not
>> able to get work done.
>>
>> This is not just within applications; How does a novice know if they
>> should be using KDE, GNOME, or one of the other environments? How do
>> they know what distro to get? How do they know which media player to
>> use?
>
> Yes, you raise a very legitimate point here, and I touched on the
> answer in an earlier post. Linux's strength among the geek crowd
> becomes something of a weakness among the newbie set. All that
> freedom and choice and experimentation leads to a lot of great
> innovation and new software, but it can also lead to a lot of
> confusion for the new user. New desktop oriented distros attempt
> to filter and organize the choices to make Linux more approachable,
> but then even the variety of distros adds a level of confusion.
Agreed: though reading my comments above I would make one correction; I
stated Apple gets it right - the reality it Apple gets it *more* right. :)
>
> Ultimately, this will all get sorted out in the marketplace of
> ideas. If a distro is too confusing for the newbie set, it will
> simply not catch on and will die on the vine. A distro that gets
> it right will be recommended to friends, find a following, and
> succeed. It is a microcosm of how Linux itself grew. It is
> darwanism in action... only the solution that really works will
> survive and replicate. Linux's ability to be customized, built
> upon, and repackaged as a new distros is the critical 'mutation'
> component that assures a viable desktop strain will emerge.
To some extent this is happening - I think. Seems, for now, Ubuntu and
maybe a couple of other distros are becoming the dominant for the
non-Linux-geek crowd. I have written in the past that I find Ubuntu to be
very, very impressive compared to what I saw from Linux just a few years
ago.
>
>> What I repeatedly see in the COLA is someone asking a question and then
>> being criticized for using the wrong distro or wrong program or having
>> the wrong settings. If you want Feature A you should use Ubuntu with
>> such and such program, but if you want Feature B you should use SUSE
>> with a different program. And if you have dependency problems you must
>> be a troll!
>
> You make the mistake of thinking advocacy groups are about advocacy,
> they are not. They really exist as a troll sink, something to keep
> the tech and dev groups safe and vermin free.
>
> You think I am joking, but this is really the case. I remember the
> usenet discussion and voting that created many of the advocacy groups.
> It was prompted by the growing annoyance at pointless flame wars. It
> was a conscious effort to partition the groups and isolate the damage.
What you say is, at least to some extent, true: still, while I certainly do
my share of troll-squishing in CSMA I *also* advocate for the Mac and offer
support for those who seem to genuinely be looking. To be fair I have
received some good help with Linux in COLA, but all too often what I
described is what tends to happen.
>
>> There is no way the average user is going to tolerate this mess. Yes,
>> I know: they tolerate the mess that is called XP. That does not mean
>> they will be willing to venture out to the unknown mess and stand there
>> alone.
>
> A few brave early adopters already are, and more will join them as
> the distros are refined, more app vendors jump on board, more hardware
> vendors support Linux, etc. The momentum is there and is steadily
> building. Every years is the long awaited 'Year of the Linux Desktop';
> it's happening in increments.
I would love to see both Linux and Apple do well over the next few years.
If Linux ever gets to the point of where it serves me better overall than
the Mac I would have no problem switching. Heck, with Apple moving to Intel
their likely will be more distros that run on my next Mac and it will be
worth it to dual boot (or run Linux in a virtual machine at near native
speeds).
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
_________________________________________
Rex Ballard
> I'm a CD professional and have been for 23 years and counting. I have seen
> many systems come and go, Geos, Xerox GEM, OS/2, Desqview and so forth.
I've been in the industry as a professional for 25 years, and I even
remember the TRS-80, CP/M, and even a time when Microsotf WASN'T the
top name in computers.
> So now the new kid on the block seems to be Linux.
Just keep in mind that this "kid" isn't that "new". Linux is based on
technology established by UNIX. Linux is based on a combination of
original GPL code desgined to be API compatible with the industry
standards established by UNIX, which then made it possible for
libraries and applications written for BSD Unix and even applications
written for AT&T System V Unix to be run on Linux powered PCs.
UNIX has a very strong track record of overtaking nearly every single
one of it's competitors, over time. Remember RT-11? Remember VMS?
Remember Series 1?
Remember OS/400? Even MVS took a pounding at the hands of UNIX.
AT&T Kept Unix off the desktop by maintaining a "Floor" license price
of roughly $700 per machine. When you added documentation, X11,
file/print sharing, and development code, the cost could go as high as
$3500 for software alone. This was their way of protecting their
minicomputer market from cheap PC based servers.
GNU Hurd was an attempt to create an operating system that would not be
subject to this floor price. Linus uploaded his little kernel, and
because it did NOT have the code that was still protected by the AT&T
patents and exclusive copyrights, the community jazzed it up and before
long Linux was as powerful as any other version of UNIX - the
difference is that it ran on a PC that could purchased new for less
than $1,000 - less than the floor price of UNIX with X11 and TCP/IP..
By mid 1993, there were millions of Linux PCs functioning as servers
and secondary workstations. By 1995, there were over 10 million Linux
users, in fact Linux was shipping Windows NT 3.x. New versions of
Linux were self-configuring and by the time Windows 95 came out, nearly
all of the machines replaced by Windows 95 could be configured as Linux
machines using self-configuration tools built into the kernel's boot
time routines. Modular drivers combined with "probes" made it possible
to keep the kernel small and effecient without any requirement to
recompile the kernel.
> Personally, I think Linux is pretty kool stuff, but the practical side of
> me says that bobody has even heard about Linux, let alone cares about it.
Not that many people have heard of UNIX either, but nearly everybody
uses Linux and UNIX nearly all the time. Linux and UNIX have been in
the background, almost invisible, BECAUSE it's so efficient, reliable,
stable, and cost/effective. I used to list a few examples, but it's
getting to the point where it's easier to list the things that
Microsoft actually does all by itself. Word, Excel, Powerpoint,
Notepad, and Paint. IE is useless without the millions of UNIX sites
it talks to. Outlook/Exchange relies on *nix routers and Unix e-mail
hosts. Chat depends on *nix routers and hosts. Try to think of any
Windows application that doesn't in some way make use of the Internet.
> So last week I find myself in NYC and 4 hours early for a meeting with a
> client.
> So being the inquisitive person that I am, I drag out my notepad and
> proceed to to take a survey of people entering and exiting the cafe shop I
> have planted myself in for the next 2 or 3 hours.
> Bottom line is I polled over 300 people in 3 hours, 312 to be exact, and
> the poll was very simple.
>
> One question "have you ever heard of Linux", nothing more nothing less.
>
> Result was 99.4 percent had never heard of Linux.
> This is at 48th street and Broadway in NYC, right in the heart of the
> business world of the USA.
That would be the advertizing area. "Madison Avenue". and the theater
district.
Check around Wall Street. You might also want to check the trains.
Still, 300 people is a pretty good size survey. I've had a few
instances where I have been on trains or planes or at bookstores, and
just was carrying a bag with the Linux logo, or had a Linux trademark
on my shirt or laptop case.
Just going up to people in New York is probably not the best way, since
most people who approach others in NYC tend to be trying to sell
something, ranging from a "hot stock" to a "business opportunity". My
approach tends to have people asking about Linux and sharing with each
other. My experiences have been that about 80 percent of the people in
NYC environments don't know that Linux is, about 5% are rabid fans, and
about 10% have heard of it, but haven't tried it yet.
You might also want to ask them if they are familiar with Linux sites,
like Google, E-bay, E-trade, and Amazon.
Ask them if they've heard of Unix? Most people don't even know that a
Mac OS/X is actually UNIX.
> Pitiful, but maybe it's just an affirmatation that people just don't care
> about Linux because they already have Windows.
Probably. After all, or the bulk of the population only knows that
they pay a bunch of money for a PC, they plug in the wires, and they
talk to friends on the internet, browse the web, and shop online. Most
of them wouldn't even think twice if the machine had Linux instead.
They might like some of the extra "free" applications, but most of them
would just think it was "Cute" and "Different" - but "Fun".
Of course, if they took it home and they didn't have problems with
viruses, spyware, and all of those other little Nuisance programs -
then they might insist on Linux for Work and they might even replace
their old Windows PCs with new Linux PCs.
> As a check, I asked some of the people if they had ever heard of Windows
> and 100 percent said yes.
No surprise there either. Microsoft buys commercials on the Superbowl.
Microsoft pays huge sums of money - often over $4 billion/year to make
sure that everybody in the world knows who they are. Part of that
money is actually structured to make sure that people do NOT know what
Linux is. Microsoft uses it's advertizing to pressure publishers into
supressing information about Linux, or to bias the coverage against
Linux.
> So where does that leave pigs knuckle Ak. ?
Ironically, that might make pigs knuckle a bit more interested in
Linux. Actually, most of the American Midwest probably has even less
of a clue about Linux - but there are lots of people in other more
remote parts of the world who have better access to *nix than they do
to Windows. In fact, in places like Mexico City, Brazil, and PRC, they
are probably more familiar with Linux than with Windows.
> Face the facts, Linux is not known about, not cared for and not even a
> spec on the average persons radar map.
> IOW Linux is a dead end.
Let's use the most conservative estimates, which put the Current Linux
market at something like 30 million workstatins. That's 3% of the
global market. Even mare important, Linux is much more widely used in
Asia, South America, Eastern Europe, and India than in the United
States.
But if you realize that this most conservative estimate presumes a very
small measurement, essentially only those machines actually sold with
Linux preinstalled, you can quickly see that this is an underestimate.
When you add downloads, and aftermarket upgrade sales and downloads,
the "official sales record" nearly triples this number. Finally, when
you realize that most of these estimates do not include mirrors of free
sites, burned CDs such as Live-CDs which are easily replicated, and
other secondary copy services - and you can double that number. Lets
just be conservative and say that's 180 million users world-wide.
There are 36 million households in the United States, but let's assume
the Linux market in the United States is only 15 million. That means
that there could be as many as 1 Linux machine in every 2 households.
> Don't believe it?
>
> Set up shop in any mall in the USA on a Sat morning and try the experiment
> yourself.
Actually, that would be a good idea. It would be a very interesting
study to see just where there are strong markets of Linux and where
there are not.
My guess that Microsoft has all of these details.
Rex Ballard
Mitch
<thorsten...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Face the facts, Linux is not known about, not cared for and not even a
> spec on the average persons radar map.
> IOW Linux is a dead end.
I thought you were surveying whether average people know about it right
now -- how can you also decide it has no future, that it is
insignificant to development, or that it isn't in massive use right
now?
Why shouldn't 100 percent of people recognize the word 'window'?
7
> One road block to getting Linux to the desktop is the philosophy of
> Linux and many of the open source programs: just because a feature
> *can* be added does not mean that it should be added to every program.
> Apple does this right: they have basic features the average person
No Appil is a company that steals software from BSD developers
and then serves them with DMCA warrants whilst happily laughing
all the way to their banks for all your hard work.
Tell them to fsck off!
Convert existing software and updates to GPL license and then we'll
see who serves DMCA warrants on who!
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> What you say is, at least to some extent, true: still, while I certainly do
> my share of troll-squishing in CSMA I *also* advocate for the Mac and offer
> support for those who seem to genuinely be looking. To be fair I have
> received some good help with Linux in COLA, but all too often what I
> described is what tends to happen.
I think all the problems stem from the human tendency to label others
who think differently as 'wrong' even when dealing with personal preference
where right and wrong don't really apply. This is a problem that extends
way beyond just choice of operating system.
Cheers,
Thad
Rick
Maybe you should research Snit's posts. He most definitely deserves what
he gets. Many of us have killfiled him.
--
Rick
Peter Köhlmann
You mean someone like Snot (who posted well over 1000 posts in february
alone) is not a troll?
--
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Elizabot v2.0.3
Maybe you should show thad01 one of these posts:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/876b86385f6164de?hl=en&
Snit
duf3vv$3mh$00$1...@news.t-online.com on 3/5/06 9:34 AM:
> tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SN...@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> What you say is, at least to some extent, true: still, while I certainly
>>> do my share of troll-squishing in CSMA I *also* advocate for the Mac and
>>> offer
>>> support for those who seem to genuinely be looking. To be fair I have
>>> received some good help with Linux in COLA, but all too often what I
>>> described is what tends to happen.
>>
>> I think all the problems stem from the human tendency to label others
>> who think differently as 'wrong' even when dealing with personal
>> preference
>> where right and wrong don't really apply. This is a problem that extends
>> way beyond just choice of operating system.
>>
>
> You mean someone like Snot (who posted well over 1000 posts in february
> alone) is not a troll?
Is your criteria for being a troll tied to the number of posts one makes?
My criteria is tied to content (or snipping of content): criteria that
easily shows you to often troll.
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
* Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
Snit
in post duevv4$b8e$1...@tux.glaci.com on 3/5/06 8:26 AM:
There is a lot of truth to that. Some of the trolling, though, is just
clearly dishonest BS. Without naming names, here are some examples:
Some of the trolls have accused me of all sorts of BS things such as:
e-mailing their wives, being a pedophile, supporting BS technological claims
I do not support, and lying about my profession. Such dishonesty is clearly
trolling, and those that post such lies often are clearly trolls.
There are some claims that I am just in disagreement with others - mostly in
CSMA. I state my view and support it well. If they merely disagreed I
would not consider them to be trolls, even if the facts are very clear. My
.sig lists some of my claims that they have debated me over. In each case
when they have failed to convince me of their contrary views they label me
as a troll (which fits with your ideas) and then start spewing accusations
like the ones listed above. I find their actions despicable.
Just curious: do you disagree with any of my claims in my .sig? Do you see
any of those claims to be so controversial and upsetting that you would feel
the need to call me names and lie about me? I would guess *not*!
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
* Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
_________________________________________
Elizabot v2.0.3
<snip>
> Just curious: do you disagree with any of my claims in my .sig? Do you see
> any of those claims to be so controversial and upsetting that you would feel
> the need to call me names and lie about me? I would guess *not*!
You've been posting on usenet for well over a decade, Snit. Do you
really need a netiquette lesson on proper sigs? The length of yours
certainly is a bit, er, TROLLISH, not to mention the content.
http://email.about.com/cs/netiquettetips/qt/et020301.htm
"trim your signature to not more than five lines"
Here is your 15 line sig:
--------
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
* Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
--------
My sig is much more appropriate, don't you think?
--
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.3 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Ian Hilliard
> This is not just within applications; How does a novice know if they
> should be using KDE, GNOME, or one of the other environments? How do
> they know what distro to get? How do they know which media player to
> use?
What will happen is that a novice will buy a computer with some distro
with some environment installed on it and the novice will use that, just
as they do with every other OS. Once the novice knows more it is then
possible to change the environment and customize the Linux as they wish.
It is a lot easier to do this with Linux than with Windows or OSX.
As the users learn more, Linux permits them to do more.
Ian
Snit
pan.2006.03.05....@hilliardtech.com on 3/5/06 11:34 AM:
> On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 20:55:37 -0800, Snit wrote:
>
>> This is not just within applications; How does a novice know if they
>> should be using KDE, GNOME, or one of the other environments? How do
>> they know what distro to get? How do they know which media player to
>> use?
>
> What will happen is that a novice will buy a computer with some distro
> with some environment installed on it and the novice will use that, just
> as they do with every other OS.
At this point there are not even many options for buying Linux
pre-installed. But you are right that if they could go to Dell and select
Windows, Ubuntu, or SUSE (for example) then they would just use whatever
they got and never change. And likely never update. With the package
management in Linux a few more might though than would with OS X and
Windows.
> Once the novice knows more it is then possible to change the environment and
> customize the Linux as they wish. It is a lot easier to do this with Linux
> than with Windows or OSX.
The fact that updates on much of the software is free is a good benefit.
>
> As the users learn more, Linux permits them to do more.
That is true with any OS, though Windows does work to prevent it to some
extent.
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:20:04 -0700, Snit wrote:
> Just curious: do you disagree with any of my claims in my .sig? Do you see
> any of those claims to be so controversial and upsetting that you would feel
> the need to call me names and lie about me? I would guess *not*!
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
OSX-specific question, you tell us. Also depends whether OSX allows
tildes somewhere other than as the leading character, as per Linux's
approach of using it to indicate the user's home directory - which could
be anywhere. Hell, I've set 'em up to be NFS shares on some systems.
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
Last I heard, this had been more or less reduced to "BSD-like system
calls" or some such rot. I'd say the easiest test here would be to get
some non-trivial FreeBSD application, as code, and see just how difficult
it is to get it working correctly in OSX. FreeBSD has a version of, say,
Apache, right? Try that. If it builds clean and works correctly, then
whether it's actually *based on* FreeBSD or not is essentially irrelevant;
it *works* enough like it not to matter. If it ends up being a six-week
porting job, on the other hand, then "based on BSD" becomes about as
meaningless as saying a modern computer terminal is "based on" old clay
tablets, simply because they both happen to be means of displaying
information.
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
Depends how you define "sex". Incest, by definition, *is* sex - sexual
relations between, well, relations. Also depends how you define
"incest". If I'm doing my sister, is it sex or incest? How about my
cousin? Second cousin? If my g'g'g'great-grandpappy had two sons, one of
whom sired my line, the other of whom sired a different line, such that
six generations later there's me and some little hottie, does my doing her
qualify as incest? Do you keep records of your family tree that far back?
How about cases such as, say, step parents or step-siblings? If Dad
marries someone who has a kid who is no genetic relation to me, is my
doing her incest? Or not? On what grounds? What if I'm getting it on
with stepmom? Again, on what grounds? Keep in mind, she may be not only
no genetic relation to me, she may also be 40 years old - she's still
stepsis.
When you use imprecise terminology, expect meaningless results. To some,
"sex" only applies if there's actual anal/vaginal/oral penetration or
direct contact with the genitalia, as per a handjob. To others, popping a
woody from seeing a hottie qualifies as being as bad as doing the deed
itself. Where does the line get drawn?
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Again, depends how one defines "guilty". Did one actually do the crime?
We're assuming so. Does this make one responsible for it? Absolutely.
However, "guilty" is often used synonymously with having been _found_
guilty, which obviously cannot apply here. Does "guilty" equate to
"responsible"? If so, then yes, one can be.
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
You're the Apple twonk, you tell us.
* Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
Possibly, frankly, not sure. Then again, I probably wouldn't try it; I'm
kinda funny about pulling power of a bus instead of a wall socket - if the
device needs power, I'd rather it come from the hub, where it can cook
that if need be, than off the PC's USB port, where cooking it might be a
little more annoying.
Happy now?
Snit
pan.2006.03.05....@gmail.com on 3/5/06 12:37 PM:
> [snips]
>
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:20:04 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Just curious: do you disagree with any of my claims in my .sig? Do you see
>> any of those claims to be so controversial and upsetting that you would feel
>> the need to call me names and lie about me? I would guess *not*!
>
>
> * The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
>
> OSX-specific question, you tell us. Also depends whether OSX allows
> tildes somewhere other than as the leading character, as per Linux's
> approach of using it to indicate the user's home directory - which could
> be anywhere. Hell, I've set 'em up to be NFS shares on some systems.
Much the same for OS X: it is simply *not* true that the tilde means "the
hard drive only". Yet there is someone who repeatedly spewed such clearly
incorrect things as:
"YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the
name of the hard drive only."
---
"Gee, they all support me and the location. Hard drive (or in
their case ~) /library/widget. NOT the
~/users/username/library/widget as at least one other person
said, and you agreed with a day or so ago."
---
"With ~ equal to the name of my hard drive, I locate ALL of the widgets.
With it equal to harddrive/user/username/library there IS NO directory
called widget UNLESS you've installed the malware widget or another self
installed widget.
As such, when the articles YOU directed me to indicated that widgets
were at ~/library/widgets THE ARTICLES WERE USING THE ~ AS THE NAME OF
THE HARD DRIVE AND NOT THE FULL PATH harddrive/user/username/library"
---
Until the widget folder is created at users/username/library/widgets,
why would O'Reilly and others direct you to a non-existing location with
their ~/library/widgets IF as you claim, the ~ means user/username?
Clearly the person in question, who I have not named but will almost
certainly jump in to defend his ignorance, is incorrect in his claims. Even
if he and I disagreed over this, though, there is no reason for him to name
call, alter quotes, and lie about me. Heck, his normal "defense" is to
obfuscate with dishonest claims about where I think OS X files are stored -
a claim he has had no ability to support.
> * OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
>
> Last I heard, this had been more or less reduced to "BSD-like system
> calls" or some such rot. I'd say the easiest test here would be to get
> some non-trivial FreeBSD application, as code, and see just how difficult
> it is to get it working correctly in OSX. FreeBSD has a version of, say,
> Apache, right? Try that. If it builds clean and works correctly, then
> whether it's actually *based on* FreeBSD or not is essentially irrelevant;
> it *works* enough like it not to matter. If it ends up being a six-week
> porting job, on the other hand, then "based on BSD" becomes about as
> meaningless as saying a modern computer terminal is "based on" old clay
> tablets, simply because they both happen to be means of displaying
> information.
OS X comes with Apache. I would guess one could port the versions back and
forth quite easily. While OS X has other basis's in which it draws from, it
is pretty clearly partially based on FreeBSD.
> * Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
> by anyone other than perverts
>
> Depends how you define "sex". Incest, by definition, *is* sex - sexual
> relations between, well, relations. Also depends how you define
> "incest". If I'm doing my sister, is it sex or incest? How about my
> cousin? Second cousin? If my g'g'g'great-grandpappy had two sons, one of
> whom sired my line, the other of whom sired a different line, such that
> six generations later there's me and some little hottie, does my doing her
> qualify as incest? Do you keep records of your family tree that far back?
>
> How about cases such as, say, step parents or step-siblings? If Dad
> marries someone who has a kid who is no genetic relation to me, is my
> doing her incest? Or not? On what grounds? What if I'm getting it on
> with stepmom? Again, on what grounds? Keep in mind, she may be not only
> no genetic relation to me, she may also be 40 years old - she's still
> stepsis.
>
> When you use imprecise terminology, expect meaningless results. To some,
> "sex" only applies if there's actual anal/vaginal/oral penetration or
> direct contact with the genitalia, as per a handjob. To others, popping a
> woody from seeing a hottie qualifies as being as bad as doing the deed
> itself. Where does the line get drawn?
Oh, sure, there are gray areas as to what one would call "incest"; even in
the US there are different legal definitions in place in different states
and I am sure there are yet other definitions in other places in the world.
The comments of mine came from a discussion which mentioned sex and someone
else jumped to the topic of incest. I commented that it was an odd jump and
that the two were most certainly not the same (though, as you have
mentioned, incest involves sex the opposite is not true). From here there
were people telling me such things as:
"Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
and trying to "prove" that incest and sex "equaled" each other:
Incest = A / Sexual activity = B / Sex = C
If A = B and B = C, then A = C
Such views, clearly, are perverted. But even if they disagree with my
assessment of their views there is no reason for them to troll, lie, and
flame over such a disagreement.
>
> * One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
>
> Again, depends how one defines "guilty". Did one actually do the crime?
> We're assuming so. Does this make one responsible for it? Absolutely.
> However, "guilty" is often used synonymously with having been _found_
> guilty, which obviously cannot apply here. Does "guilty" equate to
> "responsible"? If so, then yes, one can be.
The context was most certainly if one could be "actually guilty", not "found
guilty".
>
> * As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
>
> You're the Apple twonk, you tell us.
Most certainly not: they do not have one even now. This will likely change.
>
> * Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
>
> Possibly, frankly, not sure. Then again, I probably wouldn't try it; I'm
> kinda funny about pulling power of a bus instead of a wall socket - if the
> device needs power, I'd rather it come from the hub, where it can cook
> that if need be, than off the PC's USB port, where cooking it might be a
> little more annoying.
I prefer powered hubs myself because they are more versatile, but
non-powered ones are fine for powered devices. For non-powered devices they
quickly run out of juice.
>
> Happy now?
Thanks. I found your comments to be quite reasonable.
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
* Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
Peter Köhlmann
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> stated in post
> pan.2006.03.05....@gmail.com on 3/5/06 12:37 PM:
>
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:20:04 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Just curious: do you disagree with any of my claims in my .sig? Do you
>>> see any of those claims to be so controversial and upsetting that you
>>> would feel
>>> the need to call me names and lie about me? I would guess *not*!
>>
>>
>> * The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
>>
>> OSX-specific question, you tell us. Also depends whether OSX allows
>> tildes somewhere other than as the leading character, as per Linux's
>> approach of using it to indicate the user's home directory - which could
>> be anywhere. Hell, I've set 'em up to be NFS shares on some systems.
>
> Much the same for OS X: it is simply *not* true that the tilde means "the
> hard drive only". Yet there is someone who repeatedly spewed such clearly
> incorrect things as:
>
< snip totally useless flame fest, inspired by Snot, naturally >
>> * OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
>>
>> Last I heard, this had been more or less reduced to "BSD-like system
>> calls" or some such rot. I'd say the easiest test here would be to get
>> some non-trivial FreeBSD application, as code, and see just how difficult
>> it is to get it working correctly in OSX. FreeBSD has a version of, say,
>> Apache, right? Try that. If it builds clean and works correctly, then
>> whether it's actually *based on* FreeBSD or not is essentially
>> irrelevant;
>> it *works* enough like it not to matter. If it ends up being a six-week
>> porting job, on the other hand, then "based on BSD" becomes about as
>> meaningless as saying a modern computer terminal is "based on" old clay
>> tablets, simply because they both happen to be means of displaying
>> information.
>
> OS X comes with Apache. I would guess one could port the versions back
> and
> forth quite easily. While OS X has other basis's in which it draws from,
> it is pretty clearly partially based on FreeBSD.
>
You "would guess". In other words, you don't know. In fact, you don't have
the shoddiest of notion.
That's what you mean with "I would guess", right?
< snip more Snot drivel >
--
There are two kinds of people in this world: the kind that divides
everybody into two kinds of people, and everybody else
Snit
>>> * OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
>>>
>>> Last I heard, this had been more or less reduced to "BSD-like system
>>> calls" or some such rot. I'd say the easiest test here would be to get
>>> some non-trivial FreeBSD application, as code, and see just how difficult
>>> it is to get it working correctly in OSX. FreeBSD has a version of, say,
>>> Apache, right? Try that. If it builds clean and works correctly, then
>>> whether it's actually *based on* FreeBSD or not is essentially
>>> irrelevant;
>>> it *works* enough like it not to matter. If it ends up being a six-week
>>> porting job, on the other hand, then "based on BSD" becomes about as
>>> meaningless as saying a modern computer terminal is "based on" old clay
>>> tablets, simply because they both happen to be means of displaying
>>> information.
>>
>> OS X comes with Apache. I would guess one could port the versions back
>> and
>> forth quite easily. While OS X has other basis's in which it draws from,
>> it is pretty clearly partially based on FreeBSD.
>>
>
> You "would guess". In other words, you don't know.
Correct. Good interpretation of the English language! You are improving.
But it is a pretty safe guess.
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 15:18:11 -0700, Snit wrote:
> Much the same for OS X: it is simply *not* true that the tilde means "the
> hard drive only". Yet there is someone who repeatedly spewed such clearly
> incorrect things as:
[snips]
Fine. They don't get it, they don't get it. Or there's simply a
confusion of what's actually being discussed. Either way, don't really
care.
>> * OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
>
> OS X comes with Apache.
Fine, but the point is to take the *BSD version and get *it* working. If
it just compiles, builds and works, voila; it's either BSD-based, or close
enough not to matter. If it don't, it ain't.
> Oh, sure, there are gray areas as to what one would call "incest"; even
> in the US there are different legal definitions in place in different
> states and I am sure there are yet other definitions in other places in
> the world.
Not to mention the distinction between legal definitions and what anyone
other than a lawyer or judge would use.
> true). From here there were people telling me such things as:
>
> "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex" "I have *always*
> maintained that incest is synonymous with sex" "I on the other hand
> have maintained that incest and sex are
> synonymous!"
Umm... well... yes and no. It's "synonymous" insofar as without sex,
there more or less can't be incest, so if you're "having incest", you're
having sex. However, as you note, the converse isn't true; having sex
does not equate to "having incest".
> and trying to "prove" that incest and sex "equaled" each other:
Unidirectionally, they do. Omnidirectionally, however, they don't.
>> * One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
>
> The context was most certainly if one could be "actually guilty", not
> "found guilty".
So it rests on the definition of "guilty". If one equates it to
"responsible", as in "If I'm responsible for the crime, I'm guilty of
committing it", then obviously yes, one can be guilty, regardless of
trials and suchlike. If one defines it otherwise, results may vary.
>> * As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
>>
>> You're the Apple twonk, you tell us.
>
> Most certainly not: they do not have one even now. This will likely
> change.
So WTF is a "mighty mouse"? And is Apple *still* selling machines with
those silly-ass crippled one-button rodents, or have they graduated to two
buttons and a wheel, at the very least, yet? :)
>> * Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
>
> I prefer powered hubs myself because they are more versatile, but
> non-powered ones are fine for powered devices. For non-powered devices
> they quickly run out of juice.
As I said, didn't know - I don't really use that many USB devices.
However, as noted, I have a philosophical issue with pulling power off a
bus, when there's a bleepin' mains outlet sitting right there to plug
devices into. Strikes me as poor design, especially on a bus which is
nominally capable of handling umpteen devices.
Snit
> [snips]
>
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 15:18:11 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Much the same for OS X: it is simply *not* true that the tilde means "the
>> hard drive only". Yet there is someone who repeatedly spewed such clearly
>> incorrect things as:
>
> [snips]
>
> Fine. They don't get it, they don't get it. Or there's simply a
> confusion of what's actually being discussed. Either way, don't really
> care.
My initial point was that it is absurd that someone would not only state
that the tilde means "the hard drive only", would not only refuse to accept
any corrections no matter what, but would then troll, flame, alter quotes,
etc. to try to deal with their humiliation. It was pathetic.
>
>>> * OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
>>
>> OS X comes with Apache.
>
> Fine, but the point is to take the *BSD version and get *it* working. If
> it just compiles, builds and works, voila; it's either BSD-based, or close
> enough not to matter. If it don't, it ain't.
I would bet it would - though there might be some minor changes. I do not
know for certain though.
>
>> Oh, sure, there are gray areas as to what one would call "incest"; even
>> in the US there are different legal definitions in place in different
>> states and I am sure there are yet other definitions in other places in
>> the world.
>
> Not to mention the distinction between legal definitions and what anyone
> other than a lawyer or judge would use.
True.
>
>> true). From here there were people telling me such things as:
>>
>> "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex" "I have *always*
>> maintained that incest is synonymous with sex" "I on the other hand
>> have maintained that incest and sex are
>> synonymous!"
>
> Umm... well... yes and no. It's "synonymous" insofar as without sex,
> there more or less can't be incest, so if you're "having incest", you're
> having sex. However, as you note, the converse isn't true; having sex
> does not equate to "having incest".
A square is a rectangle but the concepts are not synonymous.
>
>> and trying to "prove" that incest and sex "equaled" each other:
>
> Unidirectionally, they do. Omnidirectionally, however, they don't.
A square is a form of a rectangle but the concept of a square is not the
same as the concept of a rectangle.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>
>>> * One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
>>
>> The context was most certainly if one could be "actually guilty", not
>> "found guilty".
>
> So it rests on the definition of "guilty". If one equates it to
> "responsible", as in "If I'm responsible for the crime, I'm guilty of
> committing it", then obviously yes, one can be guilty, regardless of
> trials and suchlike. If one defines it otherwise, results may vary.
It was defined as having committed the crime.
>
>>> * As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
>>>
>>> You're the Apple twonk, you tell us.
>>
>> Most certainly not: they do not have one even now. This will likely
>> change.
>
> So WTF is a "mighty mouse"? And is Apple *still* selling machines with
> those silly-ass crippled one-button rodents, or have they graduated to two
> buttons and a wheel, at the very least, yet? :)
Three buttons plus a track-ball type thingy in the middle. But no wireless
version yet.
There are benefits to the one button standard, for what it is worth.
>
>>> * Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
>>
>> I prefer powered hubs myself because they are more versatile, but
>> non-powered ones are fine for powered devices. For non-powered devices
>> they quickly run out of juice.
>
> As I said, didn't know - I don't really use that many USB devices.
> However, as noted, I have a philosophical issue with pulling power off a
> bus, when there's a bleepin' mains outlet sitting right there to plug
> devices into. Strikes me as poor design, especially on a bus which is
> nominally capable of handling umpteen devices.
It is handy to have the bus power portable, low power devices such as thumb
drives.
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
* Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
Steve Carroll
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The context was most certainly if one could be "actually guilty", not
> > "found guilty".
I'm the person Snit had this initial discussion with... in my view, the
context was most certainly "found guilty". Snit's confusion stems from
the fact that not all 'findings' of guilt are done in a courtroom...
(the reality that a newsgroup is not a courtroom cannot be overlooked...
and Snit is found stating this very thing in the google archive).
In order to make a claim that someone is guilty you *should* have, in
advance of the allegation, conducted some kind of finding... in other
words, looked at some sort of evidence to reach your conclusion of
guilt. Basic common sense would prevent someone from making a claim that
another person is guilty of committing a crime without benefit of any
deliberation. I have never met any sane person that would disagree with
this idea. Snit apparently not only disagrees with it, he does so
*while* presenting evidence he claims he used to reach his guilt
conclusion;) No, I'm not kidding... he MUST be doing this because he
just told you the context had nothing to do with being "found guilty"...
yet, he presented to me evidence that he claims "strongly supports" his
guilt allegation that started this discussion.
> So it rests on the definition of "guilty". If one equates it to
> "responsible", as in "If I'm responsible for the crime, I'm guilty of
> committing it", then obviously yes, one can be guilty, regardless of
> trials and suchlike. If one defines it otherwise, results may vary.
I notice your wording appears rather precise here and, unless I'm
mistaken, I read what you wrote to mean that only you, as the person who
committed the crime, can unequivocally state that you are responsible
(guilty) without need of conducting a 'finding' of some sort. To this, I
agree... to be sure, if any sense of fairness is utilized, simple logic
dictates that all other persons (in court or out) seeking to lay
responsibility on another, can only rightfully do so as the result of
some manner of deliberation. I know that, for myself, I couldn't, in
good conscience, declare a person guilty of anything without first
conducting a finding of my own.
If, as the person making the allegation of "guilty", you presented
evidence that you stated enabled you to reach your conclusion of
"guilty", then you are unquestionably presenting things in a context of
being "found guilty". Well, Snit did this very thing, yet, above, you
saw him claim the context was not "found guilty". Ask Snit to explain
how he arrived at concluding a person is guilty by looking at the
evidence he claims to have utilized to reach his conclusion, yet, he did
so without the use of deliberation or finding. His answer will be...
enlightening;)
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
chrisv
>I'm a
...worthless troll.
*plonk*
la...@portcommodore.com
Yahoo
eBay
even Microsoft
It did not make them less known today, nor did it reflect on how good
it is.
I will take the point of your survey (and I would assume it's factual
because most people in my community never heard of itr either) is we
need to help get the word out.
Thanks.
Snit
noone-B36FAF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/5/06 11:01 PM:
> In article <pan.2006.03.06....@gmail.com>,
> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The context was most certainly if one could be "actually guilty", not
>>> "found guilty".
>
>
> I'm the person Snit had this initial discussion with... in my view, the
> context was most certainly "found guilty".
Well there you go! Thank you for admitting that you did not understand the
context of my comment about Bush's guilt.
Keep in mind the number of times I told you specifically that I was in
reference to being *actually* guilty, not *found* guilty. After all this
time, Steve, you have made it clear that you did not understand the context
of my statements. Wow, Steve: the sad thing is you *still* will not get it,
even after you have admitted your lack of understanding of the context I
stated that Bush was guilty of breaking the law. Here, again, is the
argument:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/Bush/>
Please note, from that page I list the silly arguments used to try to refute
it: "Bush has not been found guilty and therefore cannot be guilty of
breaking any laws. This is based on a silly word game where the word
"guilty" is dishonestly claimed to mean only "found guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt in a court of law"."
Funny how many times Steve has tried to tell me what I meant. LOL. The
irony is delicious.
In any case, Steve, I am *not* interested in another round of your semantic
games and other BS. Just wanted to note how I appreciate you pointing out
how badly you have missed context all this time.
Nobody has claimed Bush has been *found* guilty.
I have been arguing that Bush is *actually* guilty.
Do you need your girlfriend's help in finding out how many times I have told
you this before? Would it help if I pointed to an example:
Please note I also talked about your four contradictory claims about being
"actually" guilty. All in the context of my statements about Bush you
stated being "actually guilty": equals committing the crime, does *not*
equal committing the crime, equals being found guilty, and does not even
exist! Which if your contradictory views do you believe today? LOL!
Steve, I see from my filters you have a bunch of other posts where you talk
about me. Do not expect any responses: giving you this much attention was a
gift.
Thank you again, Steve, for admitting that for *years* you have not only
missed the context of my claims - despite being told literally dozens of
times - but also for admitting that you have repeatedly told me what I - in
your mind - believed and felt. As is your nor, Steve, you are a hypocrite.
The comments in my .sig are all true. You have argued against or defended
those who argue against at least five of them. Are you *ever* right? :)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-B36FAF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/5/06 11:01 PM:
>
> > In article <pan.2006.03.06....@gmail.com>,
> > Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> The context was most certainly if one could be "actually guilty", not
> >>> "found guilty".
> >
> >
> > I'm the person Snit had this initial discussion with... in my view, the
> > context was most certainly "found guilty".
>
> Well there you go! Thank you for admitting that you did not understand the
> context of my comment about Bush's guilt.
Care to explain how you alleged someone to be guilty without benefit of
conducting *your* idea of what a 'finding' is? I just can't wait to hear
this...
> Keep in mind the number of times I told you specifically that I was in
> reference to being *actually* guilty, not *found* guilty.
That's absolutely absurd. What I'm keeping in mind is that you said you
looked at the your evidence prior to determining Bush's guilt. No matter
how you slice it, a 'determination' is a 'finding'... as in "found
guilty"... by *you*... no courtroom involved.
> After all this
> time, Steve, you have made it clear that you did not understand the context
> of my statements. Wow, Steve: the sad thing is you *still* will not get it,
> even after you have admitted your lack of understanding of the context I
> stated that Bush was guilty of breaking the law. Here, again, is the
> argument:
>
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/Bush/>
Geez... you changed the material on your site AGAIN! Amazing... what a
liar you are.
Anyway, you are unquestionably incorrect. Your argument is "Bush is
guilty of breaking the law"... and you additionally stated he is a "war
criminal" because of the law (s) you allege he broke. What you show at
this site is obviously your evidence that led to your belief... it's the
material which caused you to 'find' Bush guilty. Of the sentence you
just asked a cola poster to opine on, you only mentioned "actually
guilty" or "found guilty", there was no mention of websites full of
constantly changing text. You, pointing to your evidence website that
enabled you to determine Bush's guilt, is far better proof that I could
have ever provided that what you did was 'find' Bush guilty.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:01:08 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
> In order to make a claim that someone is guilty you *should* have, in
> advance of the allegation, conducted some kind of finding... in other
> words, looked at some sort of evidence to reach your conclusion of
> guilt.
Sure. I may *think* you're guilty of, say, the wholesale slaughter of a
half a billion (I don't, but I suppose I *could*... :) ) but unless I have
some basis for making such an allegation, I cannot honestly even make the
allegation that you _might_ be guilty. Further, while I might find
sufficient evidence to suggest you may, in fact, actually be guilty,
unless it is actually compelling, I cannot honestly take the further step
of saying you _are_ guilty; at most I could say you appear guilty, or I
think you're guilty.
To actually say you *are* guilty would require actual compelling evidence,
not just my pet belief of half-assed conjecture.
>> So it rests on the definition of "guilty". If one equates it to
>> "responsible", as in "If I'm responsible for the crime, I'm guilty of
>> committing it", then obviously yes, one can be guilty, regardless of
>> trials and suchlike. If one defines it otherwise, results may vary.
>
> I notice your wording appears rather precise here and, unless I'm
> mistaken, I read what you wrote to mean that only you, as the person who
> committed the crime, can unequivocally state that you are responsible
> (guilty) without need of conducting a 'finding' of some sort.
I wasn't quite intending it to go that far, but yes, that is essentially
correct. If you lack compelling evidence that I did the deed, then
(assuming I actually did, and you just can't show it) I am the only one
who knows the truth, I am the only one who can say, honestly and
correctly, that I am, in fact, guilty.
'Course, there are caveats. I could be a complete and utter nutjob,
taking credit for everything from the moon landing to your aunt's gout.
Or you may have compelling evidence, which just happens to actually turn
out to be wrong - overlooked a detail, say. ISTR there was someone on
death row not too long back who was eventually set free because while
there was sufficiently compelling evidence to convict him and get him a
death sentence, turned out in the end he didn't do it.
> To this, I
> agree... to be sure, if any sense of fairness is utilized, simple logic
> dictates that all other persons (in court or out) seeking to lay
> responsibility on another, can only rightfully do so as the result of
> some manner of deliberation. I know that, for myself, I couldn't, in
> good conscience, declare a person guilty of anything without first
> conducting a finding of my own.
Sometimes it's not entirely necessary. Sometimes it's essentially
self-demonstrating. This, however, is not the norm, nor should it be
taken as the standard when approaching questionable issues, for obvious
reasons.
> If, as the person making the allegation of "guilty", you presented
> evidence that you stated enabled you to reach your conclusion of
> "guilty", then you are unquestionably presenting things in a context of
> being "found guilty"
Well... sort of. By presenting the evidence, you're presenting _your_
reasons for thinking he's guilty. That doesn't quite equate to either
his being guilty, or even being found guilty.
This is one reason juries aren't made of one person. As an individual, a
person is often convinced of things that just ain't so, often on what
really amounts to very flimsy evidence. By using multiple people, from
hopefully disparate backgrounds, experience, educations and such, we can
try to reduce the likelihood of this, since while one flimsy thing might
convince you, and another equally flimsy thing might convince me, chances
are neither will convince both of us - and even less likely convince the
whole jury.
So yeah, presenting evidence why you think someone's guilty is a good
step, but that doesn't quite equate to them being guilty, or even being
found guilty, so much as it suggests that they _might_ be guilty, unless a
hole is found in the supporting evidence, but, even if no hole is found,
unless the evidence is compelling, it still amounts to nothing more than
"might be", not "is".
> . Well, Snit did this very thing, yet, above, you
> saw him claim the context was not "found guilty". Ask Snit to explain
> how he arrived at concluding a person is guilty by looking at the
> evidence he claims to have utilized to reach his conclusion, yet, he did
> so without the use of deliberation or finding. His answer will be...
> enlightening;)
Not really interested. Sometimes I like to examine the underlying
concepts - eg the distinctions between being guilty, being probably
guilty, and being found guilty - but, frankly, don't really give a damn
about the actual case at hand, except as relates to those concepts.
Snit
> In article <C031A491.47A3B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-B36FAF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/5/06 11:01 PM:
>>
>>> In article <pan.2006.03.06....@gmail.com>,
>>> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The context was most certainly if one could be "actually guilty", not
>>>>> "found guilty".
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm the person Snit had this initial discussion with... in my view, the
>>> context was most certainly "found guilty".
>>
>> Well there you go! Thank you for admitting that you did not understand the
>> context of my comment about Bush's guilt.
>
> Care to explain how you alleged someone to be guilty without benefit of
> conducting *your* idea of what a 'finding' is? I just can't wait to hear
> this...
Ah, now you want to play stupid games about the word "finding". Gee, you
misunderstood the context of the word "guilty" so now you will play with
another word. How original for you, Steve. LOL! You see, Steve, in the
context above, the phrase "Found Guilty" refers to being found guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt in - get this - a court of law.
See, Steve, you *still* are playing your same stupid semantic games and
completely missing the context of comments. Bush may very well be guilty of
breaking the law (actually guilty) but never tried or convicted (found
guilty).
>> Keep in mind the number of times I told you specifically that I was in
>> reference to being *actually* guilty, not *found* guilty.
>
> That's absolutely absurd.
Incorrect: I can point to no less than a dozen times I have told you this.
I have never stated Bush has been *found* guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
in a court of law. I *have* stated that my argument shows he is *actually*
guilty - though I have admitted there is a logical possibility of error.
Based on that admission you jumped to the "Argument from Ignorance" and
decided that since there was the logical possibility than that possibility
must be true. You even claimed you "tricked" me into admitting something
that I never denied: I have very strong support that Bush is *actually*
guilty of breaking the law, but I admit there is a logical *possibility* of
error.
Of course that whole last paragraph goes so far over your head as to
embarrass you to the point of spewing all sorts of lies about me. That is
your burden to carry, not mine.
<SNIP CONTENT="Steve spewing stuff based on his faulty understanding of my
comments" />
>> After all this time, Steve, you have made it clear that you did not
>> understand the context of my statements. Wow, Steve: the sad thing is you
>> *still* will not get it, even after you have admitted your lack of
>> understanding of the context I stated that Bush was guilty of breaking the
>> law. Here, again, is the argument:
>>
>> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/Bush/>
>
> Geez... you changed the material on your site AGAIN! Amazing... what a
> liar you are.
Wow, Steve, try clicking on the link to "Orig". It is not as though I have
made it a secret I re-worded things for clarity and to include some of the
criticism you and others have made. What difference do you find in the
logic of the argument? Any? Of course not: you and logic never get along
well. :)
<SNIP CONTENT="Lies from Steve" />
Have I given you enough attention or will you keep trolling, flaming, and
lying about me?
Steve Carroll
> [snips]
>
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:01:08 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> > In order to make a claim that someone is guilty you *should* have, in
> > advance of the allegation, conducted some kind of finding... in other
> > words, looked at some sort of evidence to reach your conclusion of
> > guilt.
>
> Sure. I may *think* you're guilty of, say, the wholesale slaughter of a
> half a billion (I don't, but I suppose I *could*... :) ) but unless I have
> some basis for making such an allegation, I cannot honestly even make the
> allegation that you _might_ be guilty. Further, while I might find
> sufficient evidence to suggest you may, in fact, actually be guilty,
> unless it is actually compelling, I cannot honestly take the further step
> of saying you _are_ guilty; at most I could say you appear guilty, or I
> think you're guilty.
>
> To actually say you *are* guilty would require actual compelling evidence,
> not just my pet belief of half-assed conjecture.
Evidence that might compel one person may not compel another. This is
all beside my point... any such action of alleging guilt of another
would be done via a finding based on looking at the evidence, whether
that evidence is conclusive, concrete, compelling... or not... or, at
least, it *should* be done that way. All I'm saying is that the evidence
must be looked at. Once you look at that evidence you will make a
determination (a finding) as it pertains to the allegation. This is
*exactly* what Snit did in order to state that "Bush is guilty of
breaking the law" (his argument that started this foolishness). Google
will show that Snit presented evidence he claimed to have looked at to
arrive at what Snit referred to as his "conclusion" (his "finding'). For
him to misrepresent his argument to you the way he has is disingenuous
on his part. His statement here to you was false:
'The context was most certainly if one could be "actually guilty", not
"found guilty"."
Snit clearly "found" Bush guilty based on evidence he claimed to look at.
Snit
> [snips]
>
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:01:08 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> In order to make a claim that someone is guilty you *should* have, in
>> advance of the allegation, conducted some kind of finding... in other
>> words, looked at some sort of evidence to reach your conclusion of
>> guilt.
>
> Sure. I may *think* you're guilty of, say, the wholesale slaughter of a
> half a billion (I don't, but I suppose I *could*... :) ) but unless I have
> some basis for making such an allegation, I cannot honestly even make the
> allegation that you _might_ be guilty. Further, while I might find
> sufficient evidence to suggest you may, in fact, actually be guilty,
> unless it is actually compelling, I cannot honestly take the further step
> of saying you _are_ guilty; at most I could say you appear guilty, or I
> think you're guilty.
>
> To actually say you *are* guilty would require actual compelling evidence,
> not just my pet belief of half-assed conjecture.
So if you were to say you had evidence, presented it, and then stated Steve
was guilty, the reasonable thing for someone else to do would be to show how
your evidence was faulty (assuming it was).
Steve has failed to do that with the argument in question:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/Bush>
<SNIP />
>> . Well, Snit did this very thing, yet, above, you
>> saw him claim the context was not "found guilty". Ask Snit to explain
>> how he arrived at concluding a person is guilty by looking at the
>> evidence he claims to have utilized to reach his conclusion, yet, he did
>> so without the use of deliberation or finding. His answer will be...
>> enlightening;)
>
> Not really interested. Sometimes I like to examine the underlying
> concepts - eg the distinctions between being guilty, being probably
> guilty, and being found guilty - but, frankly, don't really give a damn
> about the actual case at hand, except as relates to those concepts.
Once Steve realized he could not deal with the case at hand he went to only
focusing on these topics.
It still comes down to I have very strong evidence to show Bush's *actual*
guilt (not to suggest he has been found guilty). Steve plays every semantic
game in the book to run from that. He also trolls, lies, flames, alters
quotes, falsely attributes quotes, makes accusations of drug abuse, etc.
Such is life. :)
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
* Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-4D8302....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/6/06 11:14 AM:
>
> > In article <C031A491.47A3B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-B36FAF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/5/06 11:01 PM:
> >>
> >>> In article <pan.2006.03.06....@gmail.com>,
> >>> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> The context was most certainly if one could be "actually guilty", not
> >>>>> "found guilty".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm the person Snit had this initial discussion with... in my view, the
> >>> context was most certainly "found guilty".
> >>
> >> Well there you go! Thank you for admitting that you did not understand the
> >> context of my comment about Bush's guilt.
> >
> > Care to explain how you alleged someone to be guilty without benefit of
> > conducting *your* idea of what a 'finding' is? I just can't wait to hear
> > this...
>
> Ah, now you want to play stupid games about the word "finding".
Word games? Do you need a definition for the word 'finding', Snit?
I want you to explain how what you did to arrive at what you called your
"conclusion" wasn't done by looking at the evidence you claimed you
looked at to reach that "conclusion". Remember this statement you wrote:
"the evidence in my argument points to the conclusion and strongly
supports"
See, you wrote: "points to the conclusion". Hmmm, "conclusion"... hmmm,
interesting choice of word by you. How does a "finding" differ from a
"conclusion", Snit? Say, you don't suppose the two words might be
"synonymous", do you?
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=finding
Main Entry:
finding
Part of Speech:
noun
Definition:
judgment
Synonyms:
award, conclusion, data, decision, decree, discovery, pronouncement,
recommendation, sentence, verdict
Well whatd'ya know;)
> Gee, you
> misunderstood the context of the word "guilty" so now you will play with
> another word. How original for you, Steve. LOL! You see, Steve, in the
> context above, the phrase "Found Guilty" refers to being found guilty beyond
> a reasonable doubt in - get this - a court of law.
So where's the part where you differentiate what you did (the thing you
refuse to acknowledge as a 'finding' despite you referring to it as a
conclusion) and a 'finding' of the type that takes place in a courtroom?
Do you think the unofficial nature of your 'finding' removes its status
*as* a 'finding'? Or are you willing to unequivocally state that you did
not 'find' Bush guilty... you just somehow 'know' that he is? See, I
only ask because you lied above when you wrote this statement:
"The context was most certainly if one could be "actually guilty", not
"found guilty"."
Reality shows that you "found" Bush guilty... you made it clear you did
this when you stated that you looked at your evidence to reach your
"conclusion" (finding).
> See, Steve, you *still* are playing your same stupid semantic games and
> completely missing the context of comments. Bush may very well be guilty of
> breaking the law (actually guilty) but never tried or convicted (found
> guilty).
>
> >> Keep in mind the number of times I told you specifically that I was in
> >> reference to being *actually* guilty, not *found* guilty.
> >
> > That's absolutely absurd.
>
> Incorrect:
It's not incorrect... you were obviously dealing in the realm of a
'finding' regarding Bush's guilt. Previously, you claimed to have looked
at your evidence to reach the "conclusion" ('finding') that you reached.
Are you now saying this isn't true? If so, then you have much bigger
problems.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> stated in post
> pan.2006.03.06....@gmail.com on 3/6/06 12:14 PM:
>
> > [snips]
> >
> > On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:01:08 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >
> >> In order to make a claim that someone is guilty you *should* have, in
> >> advance of the allegation, conducted some kind of finding... in other
> >> words, looked at some sort of evidence to reach your conclusion of
> >> guilt.
> >
> > Sure. I may *think* you're guilty of, say, the wholesale slaughter of a
> > half a billion (I don't, but I suppose I *could*... :) ) but unless I have
> > some basis for making such an allegation, I cannot honestly even make the
> > allegation that you _might_ be guilty. Further, while I might find
> > sufficient evidence to suggest you may, in fact, actually be guilty,
> > unless it is actually compelling, I cannot honestly take the further step
> > of saying you _are_ guilty; at most I could say you appear guilty, or I
> > think you're guilty.
> >
> > To actually say you *are* guilty would require actual compelling evidence,
> > not just my pet belief of half-assed conjecture.
>
> So if you were to say you had evidence, presented it, and then stated Steve
> was guilty, the reasonable thing for someone else to do would be to show how
> your evidence was faulty (assuming it was).
>
> Steve has failed to do that with the argument in question:
Spare me... Google shows where I and numerous posters pulled your
argument apart from many different viewpoints. Even you admitted you had
no proof:
Me:
"Your argument asserted that a sitting President is a war criminal. You
agreed (a few paragraphs above) that the evidence you used to support
this was 'based on legalities' (based on the breaking, or not, of a
law)."
You"
"Yes. Very good."
Me:
"You have just admitted that your evidence does not prove this
assertion."
You:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/abc91b0d42e3899b
?dmode=source&hl=en
You not only defined what proof is there, you *clearly* stated that your
evidence did not offer ANY, "technically, in a logical sense". In other
words, according to you, not one thing was shown to be true for which
something else could 'necessarily follow from it'. The weird part here
is you make this admission will still clinging to the idea that your
"conclusion" is 'strongly supported'... a conclusion you now seem to be
claiming is not a 'finding' on your part. This stuff by you just gets
more bizarre as time goes by.
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/Bush>
>
> <SNIP />
>
> >> . Well, Snit did this very thing, yet, above, you
> >> saw him claim the context was not "found guilty". Ask Snit to explain
> >> how he arrived at concluding a person is guilty by looking at the
> >> evidence he claims to have utilized to reach his conclusion, yet, he did
> >> so without the use of deliberation or finding. His answer will be...
> >> enlightening;)
> >
> > Not really interested. Sometimes I like to examine the underlying
> > concepts - eg the distinctions between being guilty, being probably
> > guilty, and being found guilty - but, frankly, don't really give a damn
> > about the actual case at hand, except as relates to those concepts.
>
> Once Steve realized he could not deal with the case at hand he went to only
> focusing on these topics.
>
> It still comes down to I have very strong evidence to show Bush's *actual*
> guilt
Evidence even YOU said offered *no* proof. Initially, besides saying
Bush was guilty, you went as far as to call him a war criminal. Of
course, you changed your tune on that, too (from the same post as above):
"Right: I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal."
> (not to suggest he has been found guilty). Steve plays every semantic
> game in the book to run from that. He also trolls, lies, flames, alters
> quotes, falsely attributes quotes, makes accusations of drug abuse, etc.
> Such is life. :)
What do you expect? Your position on stuff like this is totally absurd
as you keep shifting it back and forth between contexts and you keep
changing your mind regarding your argument. How can you continue to
claim a person *is* guilty when you admit your evidence offers nothing
in the way of proof? In court or out... allegations of guilt require
*some* kind of proof. You, calling someone guilty while admitting your
evidence offers *no* proof makes you look like... well.... you.
Snit
All that BS from you, Steve, and the facts have not changed:
I provided a strong argument that shows Bush is guilty of breaking the law.
Actually guilty; not found guilty in a court of law. Here is the argument:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/Bush>
Instead of being honest and just admitting you have no reasoned refutation
of my argument, you play games:
* semantic games with the words "guilty", "guilt", "found", etc.
* dishonest claims that my argument has had any significant changes:
it has been reworded to clarify questions people have had, but the
link to the original is still there *and* you have failed to point
to any way the argument has changed
* dishonestly claimed that I "stole" the argument from anyone.
* show a lack of understanding of logic by repeatedly using
arguments from ignorance and other logical fallacies
* made accusations of drug and alcohol abuse
* blamed me for e-mailing your unmarried "wife"
* dishonestly attributed all sorts of quotes to me
* dishonestly blamed all sorts of people for being my sock puppets
What you have failed to do, Steve, after all this time is actually post a
reasoned refutation of my argument.
Snit
All that BS from you, Steve, and the facts have not changed:
I provided a strong argument that shows Bush is guilty of breaking the law.
Actually guilty; not found guilty in a court of law. Here is the argument:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/Bush>
Instead of being honest and just admitting you have no reasoned refutation
of my argument, you play games:
* semantic games with the words "guilty", "guilt", "found", etc.
* dishonest claims that my argument has had any significant changes:
it has been reworded to clarify questions people have had, but the
link to the original is still there *and* you have failed to point
to any way the argument has changed
* dishonestly claimed that I "stole" the argument from anyone.
* show a lack of understanding of logic by repeatedly using
arguments from ignorance and other logical fallacies
* made accusations of drug and alcohol abuse
* blamed me for e-mailing your unmarried "wife"
* dishonestly attributed all sorts of quotes to me
* dishonestly blamed all sorts of people for being my sock puppets
What you have failed to do, Steve, after all this time is actually post a
reasoned refutation of my argument.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 13:04:29 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
> In article <pan.2006.03.06....@gmail.com>,
>> To actually say you *are* guilty would require actual compelling evidence,
>> not just my pet belief of half-assed conjecture.
>
> Evidence that might compel one person may not compel another.
Well, indeed - which is why I made the point about why juries are made of
several, not just one.
On the other hand... well... being from something of a science background,
perhaps I tend to use "compelling evidence" a bit differently from most.
To me, "compelling evidence" means evidence which is sufficient to support
the hypothesis well enough that to reject it or deny it would require some
degree of intellectual dishonesty.
> This is
> all beside my point... any such action of alleging guilt of another
> would be done via a finding based on looking at the evidence, whether
> that evidence is conclusive, concrete, compelling... or not... or, at
> least, it *should* be done that way.
Indeed. If you haven't got evidence, or you do but it's insufficient to
warrant the conclusion as being at least _probable_, then to make the
conclusion is wishful thinking at best, dishonesty at worst.
> All I'm saying is that the evidence
> must be looked at.
'Zackly. Assuming it exists. If it don't, or you ignore it, then what
are you yapping about? :)
> determination (a finding) as it pertains to the allegation. This is
> *exactly* what Snit did
Again, don't really give a damn. Take it up with him. :)
Snit
> [snips]
>
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 13:04:29 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2006.03.06....@gmail.com>,
>>> To actually say you *are* guilty would require actual compelling evidence,
>>> not just my pet belief of half-assed conjecture.
>>
>> Evidence that might compel one person may not compel another.
>
> Well, indeed - which is why I made the point about why juries are made of
> several, not just one.
>
> On the other hand... well... being from something of a science background,
> perhaps I tend to use "compelling evidence" a bit differently from most.
> To me, "compelling evidence" means evidence which is sufficient to support
> the hypothesis well enough that to reject it or deny it would require some
> degree of intellectual dishonesty.
I argued that Bush is guilty of breaking the law (note: not that he has been
found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law). I did
acknowledge that while my argument is strong and, so far, unrefuted, there
exists a logical possibility of error.
Instead of trying to refute my argument in any honest way, Steve has:
* pretended I meant Bush was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in
a court of law
* when that fell apart played semantic games with the word "found" and tried
to equate my argument with a legal finding (after all my argument
discusses the law!) This is completely absurd on Steve's part.
When I failed to roll over and even pointed out Steve's absurd games he
started:
* accusing many people of being my sock puppets
* accused me of e-mailing his wife
* falsely attributed quotes to me - both others and *his own*
* accused me of drug an alcohol abuse
* accused me of inappropriate sexual actions
* belittled me for health concerns I have (while putting others
down for doing much the same)
In general he has been following me around for years because he cannot find
a reasoned refutation to a political argument I made. He is pathetic.
Steve has *no* reasoned refutation for my argument against Bush. If he did
he would be shoving it in my face every chance he had.
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
* Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> stated in post
> pan.2006.03.06....@gmail.com on 3/6/06 3:59 PM:
>
> > [snips]
> >
> > On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 13:04:29 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >
> >> In article <pan.2006.03.06....@gmail.com>,
> >>> To actually say you *are* guilty would require actual compelling evidence,
> >>> not just my pet belief of half-assed conjecture.
> >>
> >> Evidence that might compel one person may not compel another.
> >
> > Well, indeed - which is why I made the point about why juries are made of
> > several, not just one.
> >
> > On the other hand... well... being from something of a science background,
> > perhaps I tend to use "compelling evidence" a bit differently from most.
> > To me, "compelling evidence" means evidence which is sufficient to support
> > the hypothesis well enough that to reject it or deny it would require some
> > degree of intellectual dishonesty.
>
> I argued that Bush is guilty of breaking the law (note: not that he has been
> found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law). I did
> acknowledge that while my argument is strong and, so far, unrefuted, there
> exists a logical possibility of error.
Give it up, Snit... you stated you had absolutely no proof:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/abc91b0d42e3899b
?dmode=source&hl=en
As to a "logical possibility of error" ... it's a guilt allegation, fer
crissakes... not a damn science project. ALL guilt allegations must be
accompanied by a sufficient level of proof to be seriously considered.
When there is NO proof it creates an atmosphere of reasonable doubt for
any guilt allegation... in fact, it creates an atmosphere of total doubt.
> Instead of trying to refute my argument in any honest way,
Bullshit. Along with the obvious logical refutation based on your
admission you had no proof, your argument was refuted a number of
different ways by a number of different posters.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
...reality for you to deny? Yes, I know... everyone knows.
Snit
All that BS from you, Steve, and the facts have not changed:
I provided a strong argument that shows Bush is guilty of breaking the law.
Actually guilty; not found guilty in a court of law. Here is the argument:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/Bush>
Instead of being honest and just admitting you have no reasoned refutation
of my argument, you play games:
* semantic games with the words "guilty", "guilt", "found", "proof" [1],
etc.
* dishonest claims that my argument has had any significant changes:
it has been reworded to clarify questions people have had, but the
link to the original is still there *and* you have failed to point
to any way the argument has changed
* dishonestly claimed that I "stole" the argument from anyone.
* show a lack of understanding of logic by repeatedly using
arguments from ignorance and other logical fallacies
* made accusations of drug and alcohol abuse
* blamed me for e-mailing your unmarried "wife"
* dishonestly attributed all sorts of quotes to me
* dishonestly blamed all sorts of people for being my sock puppets
What you have failed to do, Steve, after all this time is actually post a
reasoned refutation of my argument.
[1] Sorry I left out your semantic games and lies dealing with the concept
of "proof" - clearly you felt the need to remind me. LOL! No wonder you
admit to being a moron and an asshole!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Well, unlike you, I don't label reality as "BS"... but you are correct
that the facts have not changed. As I've shown, you *clearly* admitted
you had no proof for you argument.
Larry Qualig
Snit wrote:
>
> --
> * The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
> * OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
> * Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
> by anyone other than perverts
> * One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
> * As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
> * Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
This thread isn't all that interesting to me but I do want to put my
2-cents in and move on.
- - * One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted.
The problem here is that 'guilty' is a specific legal term. As in
"Innocent until proven guilty" which basically implies that "guilt" is
something that must be proven before it can be labled as such.
People have engaged in criminal behaviour and were never tried nor
convicted. There are several cases where everyone (police, district
attorney, etc.) basically knows that someone is "guilty" of a crime but
for some legal reason they cannot arrest or charge the person. (Example
- A foreign diplomat in New York City was DUI and killed someone.) The
guy was basically drunk at the scene but diplomatic immunity prevents
us from charging him.
Is he guilty - Yes and No. In the practical sense of course he's
"guilty" of DUI and manslaughter. Guilty in this sense means
"responsible" for what took place. But in the legal sense he is not
guilty since we are not allowed to arrest or prosecute the guy.
Snit
1141708173.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com on 3/6/06 10:09 PM:
>
> Snit wrote:
>> * The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
>> * OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
>> * Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
>> by anyone other than perverts
>> * One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
>> * As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
>> * Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
>
>
> This thread isn't all that interesting to me but I do want to put my
> 2-cents in and move on.
>
> - - * One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted.
>
> The problem here is that 'guilty' is a specific legal term. As in
> "Innocent until proven guilty" which basically implies that "guilt" is
> something that must be proven before it can be labled as such.
That is not correct. One can clearly be guilty of crime yet never tried nor
convicted. Here is a link that explains it rather well:
<http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/colb/20031022.html>
many non-lawyers (and even some lawyers) mistakenly hold the following
view of the presumption of innocence: that unless and until a defendant
has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of
a jury, he remains actually innocent.
On this flawed (and even preposterous) understanding of the law, no one
may permissibly believe that a defendant charged with a crime is guilty,
if a jury has not already so concluded. In truth, every one of us is
free, both factually and legally, to think whatever we wish about the
guilt or innocence of a defendant, regardless of what a jury has said or
will say on the matter.
The presumption of innocence is a requirement that applies only to the
members of a jury in a criminal trial. Even as to them, moreover, it
does not dictate jurors' thoughts. It simply obligates them to select
"not guilty" as their verdict if the prosecution fails to produce
sufficient evidence to persuade them of a defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
And, from the linked "earlier column"
The first claim was that Simpson actually was innocent, and would
continue to be innocent, unless and until a jury brought in a guilty
verdict against him. For all but those who take the radical (one might
even say preposterous) view that the truth of an event from the past
magically changes when the jury reaches a verdict, the phrase "innocent
until proven guilty" cannot be taken as an accurate, literal description
of reality. O.J. Simpson either did or did not kill Nicole Brown and
Ronald Goldman, and nothing that a jury says later can factually alter
that historical truth. ...
What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of innocence? In a
criminal trial, the presumption of innocence is an important
constitutional protection for the accused. It means that the jury may
only pronounce the defendant guilty if the physical and testimonial
evidence presented prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put
differently, the jury must say "not guilty" even when it believes the
defendant is guilty and often, it follows, even when the defendant in
fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and the Constitution order the
jury to acquit.
If someone is actually guilty of a crime, no verdict can make him cease to
be guilty, just as no verdict can make an innocent person become guilty.
> People have engaged in criminal behaviour and were never tried nor
> convicted. There are several cases where everyone (police, district
> attorney, etc.) basically knows that someone is "guilty" of a crime but
> for some legal reason they cannot arrest or charge the person. (Example
> - A foreign diplomat in New York City was DUI and killed someone.) The
> guy was basically drunk at the scene but diplomatic immunity prevents
> us from charging him.
>
> Is he guilty - Yes and No. In the practical sense of course he's
> "guilty" of DUI and manslaughter. Guilty in this sense means
> "responsible" for what took place. But in the legal sense he is not
> guilty since we are not allowed to arrest or prosecute the guy.
Do you still feel this way after reading the above? Keep in mind that the
concept being discussed is if someone is *actually* guilty of a crime, not
if they have been *found* guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of
law.
Here is another way to look at it: Think of the concept of an admission of
guilt or a guilty plea. Both of these things generally happen (if they
happen at all) *before* the trial or any official finding of guilt. How
could one *possibly* admit to being guilty if we take that to mean being
*found* guilty. It makes no sense: it would mean that every guilty plea was
a lie. But if the defendant has committed the crime and wishes to be
honest, must he "lie" by claiming he is guilty if he wishes to be honest
about what he has done? That is preposterous!
Even if one did want to believe your view, though, the fact remains that a
difference in such semantics *still* does not mean that an my argument
against Bush has been weakened at all:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/Bush>
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
* Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
_________________________________________
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:24:20 -0700, Snit wrote:
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> stated in post
> I argued that Bush is guilty
Charming. As I've *repeatedly* said, i don't give a damn. Either you
gave reasons which supported the conclusion, and they were sufficient to
actually warrant the conclusion, or you didn't. Either way, I couldn't
really care less.
Tell *him*. Directly. If you want to re-hash it. Don't use me as a
middleman, I simply don't *care*.
GreyCloud
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> stated in post
> pan.2006.03.06....@gmail.com on 3/6/06 3:59 PM:
>
>
>>[snips]
>>
>>On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 13:04:29 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <pan.2006.03.06....@gmail.com>,
>>>
>>>>To actually say you *are* guilty would require actual compelling evidence,
>>>>not just my pet belief of half-assed conjecture.
>>>
>>>Evidence that might compel one person may not compel another.
>>
>>Well, indeed - which is why I made the point about why juries are made of
>>several, not just one.
>>
>>On the other hand... well... being from something of a science background,
>>perhaps I tend to use "compelling evidence" a bit differently from most.
>>To me, "compelling evidence" means evidence which is sufficient to support
>>the hypothesis well enough that to reject it or deny it would require some
>>degree of intellectual dishonesty.
>
>
> I argued that Bush is guilty of breaking the law (note: not that he has been
> found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law).
Here we go again with your presidential bashing. Like this is really
doing your country or countrymen any good.
Clinton committed treason by giving away military technical secrets to
the Chinese. But seeing that he was our president, he may very well
have a very good reason to do so.
When are you democrats going to realize that you are putting your own
party in jeopardy and making it look like a three ring circus.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
GreyCloud
Proof that weasels incarnate into humans.
GreyCloud
Guffaw!!! Larry's logic is correct, but you really need to take a
course in logic from a real teacher.
GreyCloud
I can find no flaw in this logic. Of course you'll get the weasels
version from snit.
One day while taking the cat to the veternarians office, I saw a woman
with two weasels. "Nice pair of attorneys you got there." which she
smiled and laughed.
Elizabot v2.0.3
Do you think it's time to try to get Snit to address the material in
this link again:
Snit
> [snips]
>
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:24:20 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> stated in post
>
>> I argued that Bush is guilty
>
> Charming. As I've *repeatedly* said, i don't give a damn. Either you
> gave reasons which supported the conclusion, and they were sufficient to
> actually warrant the conclusion, or you didn't. Either way, I couldn't
> really care less.
I did. But even if I had not and merely claimed I did, Steve's "job" if he
wanted to honestly refute my claim, would be to show holes in my argument -
not to play semantic games with the words "guilty", "proof", "finding", etc.
You and I seem to agree on the logic of such arguments.
> Tell *him*. Directly. If you want to re-hash it. Don't use me as a
> middleman, I simply don't *care*.
--
Snit
mb-dnUXSMYd...@bresnan.com on 3/6/06 11:28 PM:
>> I argued that Bush is guilty of breaking the law (note: not that he has been
>> found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law).
>
> Here we go again with your presidential bashing. Like this is really
> doing your country or countrymen any good.
Actually, GreyCloud, by honestly assessing the president and speaking openly
about it I *am* doing right by my country.
>
> Clinton committed treason by giving away military technical secrets to
> the Chinese.
True: but the media and the Republicans attacked him for having an affair.
> But seeing that he was our president, he may very well
> have a very good reason to do so.
>
> When are you democrats going to realize that you are putting your own
> party in jeopardy and making it look like a three ring circus.
Who said I am a Democrat? LOL!
Steve Carroll
"Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
Snit's acting like a wayward child. Along with his other juvenile games,
he continually points out how a person can "be guilty of a crime but
neither tried nor convicted" as if anyone is disputing something so
obvious. All this because he got spanked;)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Larry Qualig" <lqu...@uku.co.uk> stated in post
> 1141708173.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com on 3/6/06 10:09 PM:
>
> >
> > Snit wrote:
>
> >> * The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
> >> * OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
> >> * Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
> >> by anyone other than perverts
> >> * One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
> >> * As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
> >> * Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
> >
> >
> > This thread isn't all that interesting to me but I do want to put my
> > 2-cents in and move on.
> >
> > - - * One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted.
> >
> > The problem here is that 'guilty' is a specific legal term. As in
> > "Innocent until proven guilty" which basically implies that "guilt" is
> > something that must be proven before it can be labled as such.
>
> That is not correct.
He's not arguing against it... he's making an point based on YOUR
implication.
> One can clearly be guilty of crime yet never tried nor
> convicted. Here is a link that explains it rather well:
> <http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/colb/20031022.html>
Yes, it explains the blatantly obvious well enough for those that might
need it, though, anyone that can read and comprehend it undoubtedly
already knows all this. Read her "earlier column" in this link (I cite
one pertinent paragraph below). In it, she points out how you are free
to "presume" guilt. One caveat she doesn't address... in a society like
ours, where media and internet speed communications, there is an
inherent danger to the jury selection process in presuming to the point
of public declaration (like what you have done). Of course, a person
like you, removing yourself from the jury pool in a legal case against a
defendant is most assuredly a good thing in protecting one's
"fundamental freedom from physical confinement".
>
> many non-lawyers (and even some lawyers) mistakenly hold the following
> view of the presumption of innocence: that unless and until a defendant
> has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of
> a jury, he remains actually innocent.
How many people *don't* know that a person CAN have committed a crime
despite not having undergone the trial process? You are now stuffing
this argument into Larry Qualig's keyboard... an argument he did not
make. I have never seen anyone make this argument. I have seen you yank
stuff out of context like you did here to pretend that people have made
it... but I've never seen anyone "actually" make it.
> On this flawed (and even preposterous) understanding of the law, no one
> may permissibly believe that a defendant charged with a crime is guilty,
> if a jury has not already so concluded.
I never met anyone who met anyone that "actually" held this belief.
> In truth, every one of us is
> free, both factually and legally, to think whatever we wish about the
> guilt or innocence of a defendant, regardless of what a jury has said or
> will say on the matter.
Yes, we can think whatever we wish... even a juror can think that way...
but if they wish to remain on the jury they'd better keep such thoughts
to themselves. Real enlightening information here, Snit... a U.S. law
professor reminds everyone that a person can have committed a crime
prior to a jury's conclusion and that the general populace is free to
think what they wish about a person's innocence or guilt <rolls eyes>.
> The presumption of innocence is a requirement that applies only to the
> members of a jury in a criminal trial.
I would add that it *should* apply to anyone wanting to be fair. As can
be evidenced by the many discussions you have had on this subject,
people are generally seen to be applying the presumption of innocence
outside of a courtroom... and thankfully so. Just as people are, as the
author here notes, "free, both factually and legally, to think whatever
we wish about the guilt or innocence of a defendant", we are equally
free to apply the courtroom requirement of a presumption of innocence to
our thought process.
> Even as to them, moreover, it
> does not dictate jurors' thoughts. It simply obligates them to select
> "not guilty" as their verdict if the prosecution fails to produce
> sufficient evidence to persuade them of a defendant's guilt beyond a
> reasonable doubt.
>
> And, from the linked "earlier column"
>
Also from this "earlier column":
"You can presume that Allan Iverson is guilty as charged, in other
words, subject to rebuttal by proof that emerges in the next several
months. You can do that, based on logic and the evidence you already
know about, along with the fact that thankfully, a relatively small
proportion of people charged with crimes are factually innocent."
She used the right words in the wrong order. Even so, For the purposes
of THIS discussion, this should read:
You can PRESUME a person is guilty as charged but realize that you're
doing so subject to the limitation of evidence you know about at the
time you are making the PRESUMPTION.
> The first claim was that Simpson actually was innocent, and would
> continue to be innocent, unless and until a jury brought in a guilty
> verdict against him. For all but those who take the radical (one might
> even say preposterous) view that the truth of an event from the past
> magically changes when the jury reaches a verdict, the phrase "innocent
> until proven guilty" cannot be taken as an accurate, literal description
> of reality. O.J. Simpson either did or did not kill Nicole Brown and
> Ronald Goldman, and nothing that a jury says later can factually alter
> that historical truth. ...
>
> What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of innocence? In a
> criminal trial, the presumption of innocence is an important
> constitutional protection for the accused. It means that the jury may
> only pronounce the defendant guilty if the physical and testimonial
> evidence presented prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put
> differently, the jury must say "not guilty" even when it believes the
> defendant is guilty and often, it follows, even when the defendant in
> fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold of proof beyond a
> reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and the Constitution order the
> jury to acquit.
>
> If someone is actually guilty of a crime, no verdict can make him cease to
> be guilty, just as no verdict can make an innocent person become guilty.
Of course not... but a legal verdict of guilt CAN make you 'legally
guilty' even if you have committed no crime. In this same respect, some
people that have committed crimes are not 'legally guilty' of those
crimes because they either haven't been charged or the jury handed down
a verdict of 'not guilty'. As I tried over and over to educate you on,
it's all a question of context. In this legal context, 'guilt'
essentially means 'responsible for'. See your obvious problem YET?
You're clearly taking about *moral guilt* and your *opinions* or
*presumptions* regarding Bush and the breaking of a law. When the
breaking of a law is the question of the alleged guilt action, only the
system which created the law that is alleged to be broken can decide if
the allegation has merit. Anything else is just meaningless armchair
quarterbacking... to put it in perspective, your *presumption* over
Bush's guilt carries as much weight as you attempting to send in the
next play to Ben Roethlisberger. That you admitted your evidence didn't
prove a single thing might give you a better shot with Ben...
> > People have engaged in criminal behaviour and were never tried nor
> > convicted. There are several cases where everyone (police, district
> > attorney, etc.) basically knows that someone is "guilty" of a crime but
> > for some legal reason they cannot arrest or charge the person. (Example
> > - A foreign diplomat in New York City was DUI and killed someone.) The
> > guy was basically drunk at the scene but diplomatic immunity prevents
> > us from charging him.
> >
> > Is he guilty - Yes and No. In the practical sense of course he's
> > "guilty" of DUI and manslaughter. Guilty in this sense means
> > "responsible" for what took place. But in the legal sense he is not
> > guilty since we are not allowed to arrest or prosecute the guy.
>
>
> Do you still feel this way after reading the above?
Where did he say he 'felt' one way or another? Hint: He didn't... he
merely pointed out something obvious.
> Keep in mind that the
> concept being discussed is if someone is *actually* guilty of a crime, not
> if they have been *found* guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of
> law.
>
> Here is another way to look at it: Think of the concept of an admission of
> guilt or a guilty plea. Both of these things generally happen (if they
> happen at all) *before* the trial or any official finding of guilt. How
> could one *possibly* admit to being guilty if we take that to mean being
> *found* guilty.
Simple, by not being truthful with the admission or plea. A plea doesn't
make a person "actually guilty" if he hasn't committed a crime. The
context you are discussing HERE is one where guilt is ALWAYS arrived at
via a "finding"... even if a plea of guilty is entered a judge must
still 'find' for the plea, whether or not it's a false plea. He must
determine if you're sane, if you have an ulterior motive or if you're
being coerced... whatever. He also needs to make sure you realize the
implications involved. Guilt, in THIS context is ALWAYS arrived at via a
"finding". That was Larry's point here... the point you missed while
busy attributing to him an argument he never made.
> It makes no sense: it would mean that every guilty plea was
> a lie.
"Actually, you make no sense. In any event, ever heard of plea
bargaining, Snit?
> But if the defendant has committed the crime and wishes to be
> honest, must he "lie" by claiming he is guilty if he wishes to be honest
> about what he has done? That is preposterous!
You're *truly* an idiot. Larry Qualig is drawing a distinction between
contexts for you and, here you are, carelessly sloshing back and forth
between them like you've done for over two years.
>
> Even if one did want to believe your view, though, the fact remains that a
> difference in such semantics *still* does not mean that an my argument
> against Bush has been weakened at all:
An argument for which you wrote this regarding your evidence:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
Here we see you flatly admitting that, "technically, in a logical
sense", you don't have one "true" thing from which "something else
necessarily follows from it", yet, you claim your evidence (which you
ADMITS offers ZERO proof) "strongly supports" your "conclusion"!
And now, regarding your "conclusion", you are arguing that it is NOT a
"finding" on your part... that Bush is "actually guilty" and you
conducted no form of a "finding" to reach your "conclusion". I even
pointed you to a dictionary link where the thesaurus shows the word
"conclusion" is synonymous with the word "finding". You're obviously
mentally disturbed.
Steve Carroll
"Larry Qualig" <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
Exactly... and in the case of Bush and the Iraq war (the thing that
started all this) Snit is obviously talking about 'moral' guilt as it
relates to Snit's *opinion* of the situation. Snit *presumes* Bush is
guilty (responsible)... which is all Snit can do.
Snit
Ok, Steve, at least you (for now) agree that Bush can be guilty of a crime
even though he has never been tried nor convicted. Here is an argument
showing that he is guilty of a crime:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/Bush>
Check and mate, Steve. You lose again. You will *always* lose as long as
you are completely and utterly unable to achieve your goal of finding a real
refutation to my argument. Please note you will *not* point to any post
where you have *ever* done so.
No go troll someone else.
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
* Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-F83E74....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/7/06 8:54 AM:
(snip)
> And now, regarding your "conclusion", you are arguing that it is NOT a
> > "finding" on your part... that Bush is "actually guilty" and you
> > conducted no form of a "finding" to reach your "conclusion". I even
> > pointed you to a dictionary link where the thesaurus shows the word
> > "conclusion" is synonymous with the word "finding". You're obviously
> > mentally disturbed.
>
> Ok, Steve, at least you (for now) agree that Bush can be guilty of a crime
> even though he has never been tried nor convicted.
I've never argued otherwise... in fact, I never saw anyone that argued
otherwise despite all your pretending of it. You're clearly talking
about your opinion of moral guilt. Where have I ever denied that you're
entitled to your opinion on such a matter? That's what you are claiming
I am arguing... as this thread showed and many others have shown, you're
wrong with that erroneous claim.
> Here is an argument showing that he is guilty of a crime:
Incorrect... it is an argument showing that he *can* be considered
guilty if seen under the same presumption you used to look. See your
confusion YET?
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/Bush>
>
> Check and mate, Steve.
I know.. I had you mated long ago based on simple logic but you remained
in denial for the longest time.
(snip Snit's other fantasies)
Snit
C032FFCD.47C25%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 3/7/06 9:15 AM:
> Ok, Steve, at least you (for now) agree that Bush can be guilty of a crime
> even though he has never been tried nor convicted. Here is an argument
> showing that he is guilty of a crime:
>
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/Bush>
>
> Check and mate, Steve. You lose again. You will *always* lose as long as
> you are completely and utterly unable to achieve your goal of finding a real
> refutation to my argument. Please note you will *not* point to any post
> where you have *ever* done so.
>
> No go troll someone else.
And, of course, Steve snipped and ran from the part where I point out that
if he had a reasoned argument he would be shoving it in my face every chance
he gets.
As I said: check and mate. Steve loses again. My argument *still* stands
with no reasoned refutation - most clearly not from the person who has tried
for years to do so, Steve Carroll.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> stated in post
> C032FFCD.47C25%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 3/7/06 9:15 AM:
>
> > Ok, Steve, at least you (for now) agree that Bush can be guilty of a crime
> > even though he has never been tried nor convicted.
Again: I've never argued otherwise... in fact, I never saw anyone that
argued otherwise despite all your pretending of it. You're clearly
talking about your opinion of moral guilt. Where have I ever denied that
you're entitled to your opinion on such a matter? That's what you are
claiming I am arguing... as this thread showed and many others have
shown, you're wrong with that erroneous claim.
> Here is an argument showing that he is guilty of a crime:
Again: Incorrect... it is an argument showing that he *can* be
considered guilty if seen under the same presumption you used to look.
See your confusion YET?
> > <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/Bush>
> >
> > Check and mate, Steve. You lose again. You will *always* lose as long as
> > you are completely and utterly unable to achieve your goal of finding a real
> > refutation to my argument. Please note you will *not* point to any post
> > where you have *ever* done so.
> >
> > No go troll someone else.
>
> And, of course, Steve snipped and ran from the part where I point out that
> if he had a reasoned argument he would be shoving it in my face every chance
> he gets.
I gave you a reason why what you pointed me to wasn't an argument that
shows Bush *is* guilty... it's merely an argument showing that he *can*
be considered guilty if seen under the same presumption you used to
look. Under that presumption, regarding the evidence you claimed to have
'looked' at to reach your "conclusion", you stated:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
> As I said: check and mate. Steve loses again. My argument *still* stands
> with no reasoned refutation - most clearly not from the person who has tried
> for years to do so, Steve Carroll.
Why would I agree with you that your argument shows Bush *is* guilty
when even you admit your evidence for the argument offers no proof? Are
you insane?
Snit
And look! Steve °still* completely fails to offer any honest refutation
against the very solid argument he hates so much:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/Bush>
Has *anyone* else every tried to debate against something for as long as
Steve and failed as utterly as he has? Not that I know of. Steve quite
likely is the most extreme failure in CSMA history - if not all of Usenet.
Amazing.
GreyCloud
> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> stated in post
> mb-dnUXSMYd...@bresnan.com on 3/6/06 11:28 PM:
>
>
>>>I argued that Bush is guilty of breaking the law (note: not that he has been
>>>found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law).
>>
>>Here we go again with your presidential bashing. Like this is really
>>doing your country or countrymen any good.
>
>
> Actually, GreyCloud, by honestly assessing the president and speaking openly
> about it I *am* doing right by my country.
>
Creating division in this country does NOT do it any good.
Do you really want division to take place?
>>Clinton committed treason by giving away military technical secrets to
>>the Chinese.
>
>
> True: but the media and the Republicans attacked him for having an affair.
>
All it really had shown was the tip of the iceberg of the general
condition of this countrys leaders in all walks of life.
Look at Enron and other big companies and you'll see the common thread
of corruption and greed.
Eventually, this sort of thing will bring down a country if it isn't
kept in check.
>
>>But seeing that he was our president, he may very well
>>have a very good reason to do so.
>>
>>When are you democrats going to realize that you are putting your own
>>party in jeopardy and making it look like a three ring circus.
>
>
> Who said I am a Democrat? LOL!
>
>
You act like one.
The Ghost In The Machine
<mi...@cumulus.com>
wrote
on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 11:45:24 -0700
<faGdnT8jPOIDSJDZ...@bresnan.com>:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> stated in post
>> mb-dnUXSMYd...@bresnan.com on 3/6/06 11:28 PM:
>>
>>
>>>>I argued that Bush is guilty of breaking the law (note: not that he has been
>>>>found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law).
>>>
>>>Here we go again with your presidential bashing. Like this is really
>>>doing your country or countrymen any good.
>>
>>
>> Actually, GreyCloud, by honestly assessing the president and speaking openly
>> about it I *am* doing right by my country.
>>
>
> Creating division in this country does NOT do it any good.
> Do you really want division to take place?
It already has. Witness "red" vs. "blue", for example.
No, I have no idea who started it. But the Dems tactics
clearly aren't working. I'm not sure they'll work
all that well in 2006 (election year! ahh-oooh-gah!
election year!), though it's going to get extremely
nasty. But remember: Democrats tax and spend like crazy.
Unfortunately, so do the Republicans, except they omit the
"tax" part. Best bet for the Repubs is to totally scrap
SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, and that'll go over with the
Dems about as well as the proverbial lead balloon. (No,
they can't scrap the tax breaks to Halliburton. They're
too important a contributor. No, we can't get out of Iraq.
Too much oil there -- erm, I mean, too much at stake to
let democracy flounder in that region without us therein.
Besides, we need to have something to wave at Iran, even if
it's only the American Flag... :-) No, alternative energy
is a very bad idea -- not profitable enough. Best to use coal.)
SS, however, was never intended to be the total source of income
for senior citizens.
>
>>>Clinton committed treason by giving away military technical secrets to
>>>the Chinese.
>>
>>
>> True: but the media and the Republicans attacked him for having an affair.
>>
>
> All it really had shown was the tip of the iceberg of the general
> condition of this countrys leaders in all walks of life.
> Look at Enron and other big companies and you'll see the common thread
> of corruption and greed.
> Eventually, this sort of thing will bring down a country if it isn't
> kept in check.
Eventually. But we'll probably become a theocracy first. :-/
I'd have to study my Roman history to be 100% sure of that, though,
and Rome didn't have iPods. :-)
>
>>
>>>But seeing that he was our president, he may very well
>>>have a very good reason to do so.
>>>
>>>When are you democrats going to realize that you are putting your own
>>>party in jeopardy and making it look like a three ring circus.
>>
>>
>> Who said I am a Democrat? LOL!
>>
>>
> You act like one.
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Lobo
> Eventually. But we'll probably become a theocracy first. :-/
> I'd have to study my Roman history to be 100% sure of that, though,
> and Rome didn't have iPods. :-)
By world standards the US is ALREADY a theocracy :-/
Bush: "God bless America" with every speech...
Middle-East: "Allahu Akbar" with every speech...
I don't think Americans realize how similar they sound to us outsiders
when listening to American news broadcasts of political events.
The Ghost In The Machine
<n...@here.org>
wrote
on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:14:35 GMT
<pan.2006.03.07...@here.org>:
Hmmm....well, considering that one of this President's
first initiatives was the "faith based initiative",
I can understand that. I wish I could understand how we
reelected him, unless I get *extremely* cynical and suggest
(along with some others) Diebold gimmicking. And then
there's the "holiday card" fiasco. Nice going Bush!
The good news is that the Republicans are very unhappy
about the ports deal and about the spying as well, though
because of the former the latter got pushed to the back
burner, although it appears to be the more important; the
port operations were owned by a British concern prior to
the Dubai deal and said deal will make little difference
to port *security*, as far as I can tell from all of
the electrons wasted on this already in various media.
The spying allegations, if true, are clear violations of
various Amendments.
The bad news: the Democrats are even more confused than the
Republicans, and the fact that we're killing and abusing
good Muslims in Iraq isn't helping. (We're trying to kill
the bad Muslims in Iraq, if one can call the terrorists
"bad Muslims"; we have a similar problem with some of
our televangelists. Are they Christian, or just mouthing
the words? Still, this Prez can't seem to tell the diff
at times, and at other times *we* can't. Duh...was Hamas
supposed to be on the good or the bad side this week?
Duh...)
But never mind that; just watch our pretty red, white,
and blue flag wave o'er us. It's such a pretty flag...you
are getting sleepy, sleepy.... :-)
Oh, wait, Bush tried that already.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> stated in post
>> mb-dnUXSMYd...@bresnan.com on 3/6/06 11:28 PM:
>>
>>
>>>> I argued that Bush is guilty of breaking the law (note: not that he has
>>>> been
>>>> found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law).
>>>
>>> Here we go again with your presidential bashing. Like this is really
>>> doing your country or countrymen any good.
>>
>>
>> Actually, GreyCloud, by honestly assessing the president and speaking openly
>> about it I *am* doing right by my country.
>
> Creating division in this country does NOT do it any good.
> Do you really want division to take place?
I would rather have division than support dishonesty. There is nothing
wrong with speaking out against things your government does. While there
are places not to (say, my classes) CSMA is clearly no under such
restrictions.
>
>>> Clinton committed treason by giving away military technical secrets to
>>> the Chinese.
>>
>> True: but the media and the Republicans attacked him for having an affair.
>
> All it really had shown was the tip of the iceberg of the general
> condition of this countrys leaders in all walks of life.
> Look at Enron and other big companies and you'll see the common thread
> of corruption and greed.
> Eventually, this sort of thing will bring down a country if it isn't
> kept in check.
I would love to see the corruption and greed brought into check - honestly
pointing it out is about the only tool I have to work against it. I will do
it with Bush when I want and I will do it with Steve and other CSMA trolls
when I want.
>>
>>> But seeing that he was our president, he may very well
>>> have a very good reason to do so.
>>>
>>> When are you democrats going to realize that you are putting your own
>>> party in jeopardy and making it look like a three ring circus.
>>
>> Who said I am a Democrat? LOL!
>>
> You act like one.
Wow: talk about stereotyping....
Snit
7531e3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 3/7/06 1:00 PM:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, GreyCloud
> <mi...@cumulus.com>
> wrote
> on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 11:45:24 -0700
> <faGdnT8jPOIDSJDZ...@bresnan.com>:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> stated in post
>>> mb-dnUXSMYd...@bresnan.com on 3/6/06 11:28 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I argued that Bush is guilty of breaking the law (note: not that he has
>>>>> been
>>>>> found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law).
>>>>
>>>> Here we go again with your presidential bashing. Like this is really
>>>> doing your country or countrymen any good.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, GreyCloud, by honestly assessing the president and speaking openly
>>> about it I *am* doing right by my country.
>>>
>>
>> Creating division in this country does NOT do it any good.
>> Do you really want division to take place?
>
> It already has. Witness "red" vs. "blue", for example.
>
> No, I have no idea who started it. But the Dems tactics
> clearly aren't working. I'm not sure they'll work
> all that well in 2006 (election year! ahh-oooh-gah!
> election year!), though it's going to get extremely
> nasty. But remember: Democrats tax and spend like crazy.
Yeah, the deficit was so bad under Clinton. Thankfully the Republicans are
in office now so we have such nice surpluses... oh, wait... um... never
mind. :)
>
> Unfortunately, so do the Republicans, except they omit the
> "tax" part.
OK, fair enough.
> Best bet for the Repubs is to totally scrap
> SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, and that'll go over with the
> Dems about as well as the proverbial lead balloon. (No,
> they can't scrap the tax breaks to Halliburton. They're
> too important a contributor. No, we can't get out of Iraq.
> Too much oil there -- erm, I mean, too much at stake to
> let democracy flounder in that region without us therein.
> Besides, we need to have something to wave at Iran, even if
> it's only the American Flag... :-) No, alternative energy
> is a very bad idea -- not profitable enough. Best to use coal.)
>
> SS, however, was never intended to be the total source of income
> for senior citizens.
>
>>
>>>> Clinton committed treason by giving away military technical secrets to
>>>> the Chinese.
>>>
>>>
>>> True: but the media and the Republicans attacked him for having an affair.
>>>
>>
>> All it really had shown was the tip of the iceberg of the general
>> condition of this countrys leaders in all walks of life.
>> Look at Enron and other big companies and you'll see the common thread
>> of corruption and greed.
>> Eventually, this sort of thing will bring down a country if it isn't
>> kept in check.
>
> Eventually. But we'll probably become a theocracy first. :-/
> I'd have to study my Roman history to be 100% sure of that, though,
> and Rome didn't have iPods. :-)
That we know of. Then again, have you looked up the famous "father of
mobile music": Ipodious? :)
>
>>
>>>
>>>> But seeing that he was our president, he may very well
>>>> have a very good reason to do so.
>>>>
>>>> When are you democrats going to realize that you are putting your own
>>>> party in jeopardy and making it look like a three ring circus.
>>>
>>>
>>> Who said I am a Democrat? LOL!
>>>
>>>
>> You act like one.
>>
--
GreyCloud
> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> stated in post
> faGdnT8jPOIDSJDZ...@bresnan.com on 3/7/06 11:45 AM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> stated in post
>>>mb-dnUXSMYd...@bresnan.com on 3/6/06 11:28 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I argued that Bush is guilty of breaking the law (note: not that he has
>>>>>been
>>>>>found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law).
>>>>
>>>>Here we go again with your presidential bashing. Like this is really
>>>>doing your country or countrymen any good.
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, GreyCloud, by honestly assessing the president and speaking openly
>>>about it I *am* doing right by my country.
>>
>>Creating division in this country does NOT do it any good.
>>Do you really want division to take place?
>
>
> I would rather have division than support dishonesty.
If there is division then the country falls. Who will pick up the
pieces and rule then?
> There is nothing
> wrong with speaking out against things your government does.
This is probably the only country where you can. In any other country
you'll be lucky to see the sun rise the next day.
> While there
> are places not to (say, my classes) CSMA is clearly no under such
> restrictions.
>
You still have to prove that you are a teacher. From what Liz shows,
you can't possibly have time to post and yet hold down a job, unless you
are in an IT dept. with a laptop.
>>>>Clinton committed treason by giving away military technical secrets to
>>>>the Chinese.
>>>
>>>True: but the media and the Republicans attacked him for having an affair.
>>
>>All it really had shown was the tip of the iceberg of the general
>>condition of this countrys leaders in all walks of life.
>>Look at Enron and other big companies and you'll see the common thread
>>of corruption and greed.
>>Eventually, this sort of thing will bring down a country if it isn't
>>kept in check.
>
>
> I would love to see the corruption and greed brought into check - honestly
> pointing it out is about the only tool I have to work against it. I will do
> it with Bush when I want and I will do it with Steve and other CSMA trolls
> when I want.
Look at the current Enron trial. Then look at how california got badly
gouged for power.
All greed. This doesn't set a good example and only promotes that it is
okay to be greedy if you can get away with it.
>
>>>>But seeing that he was our president, he may very well
>>>>have a very good reason to do so.
>>>>
>>>>When are you democrats going to realize that you are putting your own
>>>>party in jeopardy and making it look like a three ring circus.
>>>
>>>Who said I am a Democrat? LOL!
>>>
>>
>>You act like one.
>
>
> Wow: talk about stereotyping....
>
If the shoe fits, you are wearing it.
Lobo
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Lobo
> <n...@here.org>
> wrote
> on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:14:35 GMT
> <pan.2006.03.07...@here.org>:
>> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:00:17 +0000, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Eventually. But we'll probably become a theocracy first. :-/ I'd have
>>> to study my Roman history to be 100% sure of that, though, and Rome
>>> didn't have iPods. :-)
>>
>> By world standards the US is ALREADY a theocracy :-/
>>
>> Bush: "God bless America" with every speech... Middle-East: "Allahu
>> Akbar" with every speech...
>>
>> I don't think Americans realize how similar they sound to us outsiders
>> when listening to American news broadcasts of political events.
>>
>>
> Hmmm....well, considering that one of this President's first initiatives
> was the "faith based initiative", I can understand that. I wish I could
> understand how we reelected him, unless I get *extremely* cynical and
> suggest (along with some others) Diebold gimmicking. And then there's
> the "holiday card" fiasco. Nice going Bush!
The trick is to keep showing the "pretty woman". And it certainly
doesn't help that your media hasn't being doing a good a job of "looking
behind the curtain" in the last 10 years.
> The good news is that the Republicans are very unhappy about the ports
> deal and about the spying as well, though because of the former the
> latter got pushed to the back burner, although it appears to be the more
> important; the port operations were owned by a British concern prior to
> the Dubai deal and said deal will make little difference to port
> *security*, as far as I can tell from all of the electrons wasted on
> this already in various media. The spying allegations, if true, are
> clear violations of various Amendments.
It takes about 10 years of nibbling, tiny bit by tiny bit, to turn a
country into something, like say, N*** G******. The masses hardly notice
it. I understand that Granmaw and Granpaw will be able to get a
biometric identity card card pretty soon so it will be less of a hassle to
visit the grandchildren in another state. At the rate Bush and Cheney are
going, I'll bet they'll be implanting chips in newborn baby's asses in
order to give you 'Merkins better security.
> The bad news: the Democrats are even more confused than the Republicans,
> and the fact that we're killing and abusing good Muslims in Iraq isn't
> helping. (We're trying to kill the bad Muslims in Iraq, if one can call
> the terrorists "bad Muslims"; we have a similar problem with some of our
> televangelists. Are they Christian, or just mouthing the words? Still,
> this Prez can't seem to tell the diff at times, and at other times *we*
> can't. Duh...was Hamas supposed to be on the good or the bad side this
> week? Duh...)
From where I stand, both the elephants and the donkeys stand a fair
distance to the right of centre. It's hard to tell them apart.
As far as the Iraqis are concerned, what's that saying?
Oh yeh: "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
I still wonder how Bush managed to get from WMD's to "Bringing Democracy
To Iraq" and have this accepted by the people. It just boggles the mind to
us outsiders. BTW, democracy at the point of a bayonet has never worked in
history. I don't think it's gonna work now. :-(
> But never mind that; just watch our pretty red, white, and blue flag
> wave o'er us. It's such a pretty flag...you are getting sleepy,
> sleepy.... :-)
The current admin has done wonders with the American flag and the average
Joe. About the same as those soldiers did to Saddam's statue.....
> Oh, wait, Bush tried that already.
One has to admit the US has the best government that money can
buy. ;-)
I'm not bashing the American people or their system here. It just
angers and disappoints to see where your country is headed. I wish
to hell a greater proportion would wake up and smell the coffee.
Oooops - getting WAYYYYYY off topic here.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> stated in post
>> faGdnT8jPOIDSJDZ...@bresnan.com on 3/7/06 11:45 AM:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> stated in post
>>>> mb-dnUXSMYd...@bresnan.com on 3/6/06 11:28 PM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I argued that Bush is guilty of breaking the law (note: not that he has
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law).
>>>>>
>>>>> Here we go again with your presidential bashing. Like this is really
>>>>> doing your country or countrymen any good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, GreyCloud, by honestly assessing the president and speaking
>>>> openly
>>>> about it I *am* doing right by my country.
>>>
>>> Creating division in this country does NOT do it any good.
>>> Do you really want division to take place?
>>
>>
>> I would rather have division than support dishonesty.
>
> If there is division then the country falls. Who will pick up the
> pieces and rule then?
If there is blind following why have a country at all? I prefer freedom,
thank you very much. Bush has not taken that right completely away. Yet.
Who knows what the future brings.
>
>> There is nothing
>> wrong with speaking out against things your government does.
>
> This is probably the only country where you can. In any other country
> you'll be lucky to see the sun rise the next day.
I look forward to your support of *that* claim!
>
>> While there are places not to (say, my classes) CSMA is clearly no under such
>> restrictions.
>>
>
> You still have to prove that you are a teacher.
No, I have no obligation to prove *anything* about my life. You, however,
have made an allegation claiming I am not a teacher - you should back up
your accusations. You and I know you *never* will. Your accusation was
clearly a lie.
> From what Liz shows,
> you can't possibly have time to post and yet hold down a job, unless you
> are in an IT dept. with a laptop.
If you chose to believe Elizabeth, despite her clear and open pre-teen
emotional infatuation with me, that is your choice. The posts of hers I do
read I take with a grain of salt.
You and she can lie all you want: that will not change the reality that I am
exactly what I say I am.
>
>>>>> Clinton committed treason by giving away military technical secrets to
>>>>> the Chinese.
>>>>
>>>> True: but the media and the Republicans attacked him for having an affair.
>>>
>>> All it really had shown was the tip of the iceberg of the general
>>> condition of this countrys leaders in all walks of life.
>>> Look at Enron and other big companies and you'll see the common thread
>>> of corruption and greed.
>>> Eventually, this sort of thing will bring down a country if it isn't
>>> kept in check.
>>
>>
>> I would love to see the corruption and greed brought into check - honestly
>> pointing it out is about the only tool I have to work against it. I will do
>> it with Bush when I want and I will do it with Steve and other CSMA trolls
>> when I want.
>
> Look at the current Enron trial. Then look at how california got badly
> gouged for power.
> All greed. This doesn't set a good example and only promotes that it is
> okay to be greedy if you can get away with it.
So why do we let greedy bastards and (to get on topic) trolls such as
Carroll get away with their BS. We cannot stop them but we can sure point
out their lies. For example, Steve has recently been parroting TheLetterK's
lies about me in his .sig. Steve is lying. Period. There is nothing wrong
with my pointing out their lies.
>>
>>>>> But seeing that he was our president, he may very well
>>>>> have a very good reason to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> When are you democrats going to realize that you are putting your own
>>>>> party in jeopardy and making it look like a three ring circus.
>>>>
>>>> Who said I am a Democrat? LOL!
>>>>
>>>
>>> You act like one.
>>
>> Wow: talk about stereotyping....
>
> If the shoe fits, you are wearing it.
>
You will, I am sure, forgive me if I do not take your view on *anything*
dealing with me as having any value what-so-ever. Heck, you still lie about
my job and other things in my life. If you want me to value your comments
then you need to work on correcting the wrongs you have committed.