information technology specialist .. - Linux

This is a discussion on information technology specialist .. - Linux ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:54:40 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:07:42 -0800, > Jim Richardson wrote: >> >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:15:19 -0500, >> Erik ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 56 of 56

Thread: information technology specialist ..

  1. Re: information technology specialist ..

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:54:40 -0800,
    Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:07:42 -0800,
    > Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:15:19 -0500,
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:52:31 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Can you give an example?
    >>>>
    >>>> sure, the whole focus follows mouse debacle from a couple years ago. You
    >>>> went from "you cant do that and alt-tab" to "you can configure
    >>>> windowmaker to not do that" and it took you ages of hedgine and
    >>>> bull****ing your way from one to t'other. That one was particularly
    >>>> amusing to me, as it took me apporx 30 sec to disprove your original
    >>>> claim. Watching the dancing you did after that was icing on the cake.
    >>>
    >>> I barely remember that situation, but my recollection is that the only
    >>> reason it "took ages" is because at the time I didn't have a working Linux
    >>> partition to verify, and I stated several times to put the discussion on
    >>> hold until I did.
    >>>
    >>> After I had a working Linux partition, I proved my point, though I did
    >>> admit to being wrong about all versions of FFM. IIRC, you were putting
    >>> words in my mouth back then too. You kept claiming I said things "can't be
    >>> done" or that "X doesn't allow", when I never said such things.
    >>>

    >>
    >> - From Message-ID:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Focus follows point is very annoying if you want to use the keyboard,
    >> since the mouse forces focus elsewhere, you can't switch windows using
    >> keyboard shortucts.
    >>
    >>

    >>
    >>

    >
    > No responce Erik?



    Ah well, Erik runs away again.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHdAfwd90bcYOAWPYRAu8bAJsFhHZ6ISDQyYS/qfrhkSTqfpK8LACcC7/L
    s04nans8bu+L0kQAQD/E678=
    =Am4B
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.

  2. Re: information technology specialist ..

    In article ,
    Peter Kohlmann wrote:
    > > He considers something that spreads via an exploit in part of the email
    > > infrastructure to be spreading via email. You do not. How does having
    > > a different (but plausible) definition of "by email" than you do
    > > constitute a lie?
    > >

    >
    > He should explain then why he regards "finger" as email (the Morris worm did
    > *not* only use sendmail)


    In English, the phrase "X spreads by Y" does not mean "X *only* spreads
    by Y". Example: "a cold spreads by contact with infected doorknobs"
    does not mean a cold cannot also spread by someone coughing in your face.

    The Morris worm spread using sendmail, and also by other mechanisms.
    Erik considers that to count as spreading "by email", since sendmail is
    part of the email infrastructure. Considering that to be "by mail" is
    plausible, so to call it a lie is ridiculous.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  3. Re: information technology specialist ..

    In article <5ytk2xgrwpq1$.1ny296oookj6z$.dlg@40tude.net>,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > Who said anything about an "email sent". It used email because it used
    > sendmail, and sendmail is an email system. Plain and simple. Email is
    > more than the message itself. Next you'll claim that if the flaw is in
    > SMTP it's not a flaw in email, or if it's a flaw in MIME it's not email, or
    > if it's a flaw in the rendering of a jpeg image included in an email
    > message it's not really email.


    It would be interesting to apply Kholmanian Logic to the major Windows
    malware, and see how many turn out to not be due to Windows flaws by
    Peter's reasoning. There's a good chance Windows will turn out to be a
    very safe and secure system under Peter's type of analysis!


    --
    --Tim Smith

  4. Re: information technology specialist ..

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:14:54 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:31:22 -0800 (PST),
    > Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >> On 20 Dec, 16:02, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> .. this is really a dirty trick (posting someone's personal information). ..

    >>
    >> I posted a URL, how is this a dirty trick, what is dirty about posting
    >> a link to someones profile, unless there is something dirty about that
    >> particular individual ..

    >
    > It's the same thing Erik did to Rex.


    Lol, not quite. However, I don't give a rip what Duh!g posts, he's wrong,
    as usual. I'd encourage him to keep proving how stupid he is, but i'm
    afraid he'd start doing it to others that might care more than I do.

  5. Re: information technology specialist ..

    In article ,
    Jim Richardson wrote:
    > > He considers something that spreads via an exploit in part of the email
    > > infrastructure to be spreading via email. You do not. How does having
    > > a different (but plausible) definition of "by email" than you do
    > > constitute a lie?
    > >

    >
    >
    > Could you send an email to a vulnerable server and exploit it?


    No. Do you consider that a requirement for spreading "by email"?

    Erik's position seems to be that if it spreads by exploiting a hole in
    the email system, that can reasonably be called spreading "by email".
    One might disagree with that, but I don't see how one could say it is
    wrong to the point that saying it is a lie.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  6. Re: information technology specialist ..

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:59:48 -0800,
    Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Jim Richardson wrote:
    >> > He considers something that spreads via an exploit in part of the email
    >> > infrastructure to be spreading via email. You do not. How does having
    >> > a different (but plausible) definition of "by email" than you do
    >> > constitute a lie?
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >> Could you send an email to a vulnerable server and exploit it?

    >
    > No. Do you consider that a requirement for spreading "by email"?
    >


    yes.


    It doesn't "spread by email" if you can't send it by email. It may well
    spread by intereacting with the smtp server over some out of band
    channel, but that's not email. In the same way that a hypothetical
    exploit in an ssl library that involves repeatedly connecting to a given
    socket and issuing bogus commands isn't "spread by web surfing"

    > Erik's position seems to be that if it spreads by exploiting a hole in
    > the email system, that can reasonably be called spreading "by email".
    > One might disagree with that, but I don't see how one could say it is
    > wrong to the point that saying it is a lie.
    >


    since the discussion which prompted that subthread was in reference to
    email worms a la 'i love you' and the like, the context is pretty
    straightforward.

    Further, using that "logic" would mean that any exploit for MS-Exchange
    would be "spread by email" even if the exploit were entirely
    local, and didn't use any network connection at all!



    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHdC4Yd90bcYOAWPYRArqWAKDRn4iY4dQRbjUMLCDZop NnHF+I7QCgmglR
    e+vL/5ddrKwVOIHSN4ZudME=
    =+mql
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Gravity is unforgiving.

  7. Re: information technology specialist ..

    Jim Richardson wrote:

    > Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >> Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> After I had a working Linux partition, I proved my point, though I did
    >>>> admit to being wrong about all versions of FFM. IIRC, you were putting
    >>>> words in my mouth back then too. You kept claiming I said things "can't be
    >>>> done" or that "X doesn't allow", when I never said such things.
    >>>
    >>> - From Message-ID:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Focus follows point is very annoying if you want to use the keyboard,
    >>> since the mouse forces focus elsewhere, you can't switch windows using
    >>> keyboard shortucts.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> No responce Erik?

    >
    >Ah well, Erik runs away again.


    Typical. He just ran away from me, after I slapped the sh*t out of
    him in the "Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass
    licker" thread.

    As usual, he did not retract his claims. As usual, he is expected to
    repeat his FUD in the future, even after having been corrected...


  8. Re: information technology specialist ..

    On 27 Dec, 20:14, Jim Richardson wrote:

    > On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:31:22 -0800 (PST),
    > Doug Mentohl wrote:


    > > I posted a URL, how is this a dirty trick ..


    > It's the same thing Erik did to Rex.


    I really don't want to dig that up again, but you're not really
    equating the above with what ewic did. Show me where you objected to
    the below, I guess this is alright in your book ..

    Crossposted to: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.homosexual, alt.os.linux,
    comp.os.linux.misc, comp.lang.java.programmer

    Anyone Considering Hiring Roy Schestowitz. Check USENET First!

    http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...8dea4de?hl=en&

  9. Re: information technology specialist ..

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:45:22 -0800 (PST),
    Doug Mentohl wrote:
    > On 27 Dec, 20:14, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:31:22 -0800 (PST),
    >> Doug Mentohl wrote:

    >
    >> > I posted a URL, how is this a dirty trick ..

    >
    >> It's the same thing Erik did to Rex.

    >
    > I really don't want to dig that up again, but you're not really
    > equating the above with what ewic did. Show me where you objected to
    > the below, I guess this is alright in your book ..
    >
    > Crossposted to: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.homosexual, alt.os.linux,
    > comp.os.linux.misc, comp.lang.java.programmer
    >
    > Anyone Considering Hiring Roy Schestowitz. Check USENET First!
    >
    > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...8dea4de?hl=en&



    don't make the foolish assumption that because someone doesn't post
    about something, that they must therefor agree with it.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHdVl5d90bcYOAWPYRAgS+AKDIQrWVeYXqseZr1M96q3 VdabEyjACgwbcY
    amyCvQhJRnbkodVlH+FqBqw=
    =jbkA
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    What this world needs is a good five-dollar plasma weapon.

  10. Re: information technology specialist ..


    >
    > I really don't want to dig that up again, but you're not really
    > equating the above with what ewic did. Show me where you objected to
    > the below, I guess this is alright in your book ..
    >
    > Crossposted to: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.homosexual, alt.os.linux,
    > comp.os.linux.misc, comp.lang.java.programmer
    >
    > Anyone Considering Hiring Roy Schestowitz. Check USENET First!
    >
    > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com.../browse_thread...


    This is a flatfish post, isn't it? I don't know what Erik had to do
    with that one, although I have suspected he and flatfish have been in
    cahoots in other cases. But this is an example of how the wintrolls
    discredit themselves by their low and cowardly tactics. I say let
    them take the opprobrium.

  11. Re: information technology specialist ..

    Jim Richardson espoused:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:45:22 -0800 (PST),
    > Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >> On 27 Dec, 20:14, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:31:22 -0800 (PST),
    >>> Doug Mentohl wrote:

    >>
    >>> > I posted a URL, how is this a dirty trick ..

    >>
    >>> It's the same thing Erik did to Rex.

    >>
    >> I really don't want to dig that up again, but you're not really
    >> equating the above with what ewic did. Show me where you objected to
    >> the below, I guess this is alright in your book ..
    >>
    >> Crossposted to: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.homosexual, alt.os.linux,
    >> comp.os.linux.misc, comp.lang.java.programmer
    >>
    >> Anyone Considering Hiring Roy Schestowitz. Check USENET First!
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...8dea4de?hl=en&

    >
    >
    > don't make the foolish assumption that because someone doesn't post
    > about something, that they must therefor agree with it.


    A simple logical analysis shows that to be a silly position to take.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  12. Re: information technology specialist ..

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:18:05 +0000,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    > Jim Richardson espoused:
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:45:22 -0800 (PST),
    >> Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>> On 27 Dec, 20:14, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:31:22 -0800 (PST),
    >>>> Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> > I posted a URL, how is this a dirty trick ..
    >>>
    >>>> It's the same thing Erik did to Rex.
    >>>
    >>> I really don't want to dig that up again, but you're not really
    >>> equating the above with what ewic did. Show me where you objected to
    >>> the below, I guess this is alright in your book ..

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^


    >>>
    >>> Crossposted to: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.homosexual, alt.os.linux,
    >>> comp.os.linux.misc, comp.lang.java.programmer
    >>>
    >>> Anyone Considering Hiring Roy Schestowitz. Check USENET First!
    >>>
    >>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...8dea4de?hl=en&

    >>
    >>
    >> don't make the foolish assumption that because someone doesn't post
    >> about something, that they must therefor agree with it.

    >
    > A simple logical analysis shows that to be a silly position to take.
    >



    Yet that is the position you took.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHeV6Kd90bcYOAWPYRAlj2AKDORUn3X6LE0NUz+XaiFG xdPBcTSgCfchXY
    jNzd2DmLo+YC4527GCRlkFs=
    =EZKu
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
    (Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.)

  13. Re: information technology specialist ..

    Jim Richardson espoused:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:18:05 +0000,
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:45:22 -0800 (PST),
    >>> Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>>> On 27 Dec, 20:14, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:31:22 -0800 (PST),
    >>>>> Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> > I posted a URL, how is this a dirty trick ..
    >>>>
    >>>>> It's the same thing Erik did to Rex.
    >>>>
    >>>> I really don't want to dig that up again, but you're not really
    >>>> equating the above with what ewic did. Show me where you objected to
    >>>> the below, I guess this is alright in your book ..

    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
    >
    >
    >>>>
    >>>> Crossposted to: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.homosexual, alt.os.linux,
    >>>> comp.os.linux.misc, comp.lang.java.programmer
    >>>>
    >>>> Anyone Considering Hiring Roy Schestowitz. Check USENET First!
    >>>>
    >>>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...8dea4de?hl=en&
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> don't make the foolish assumption that because someone doesn't post
    >>> about something, that they must therefor agree with it.

    >>
    >> A simple logical analysis shows that to be a silly position to take.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Yet that is the position you took.
    >


    Um? New Year's Eve cheer too early?

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  14. Re: information technology specialist ..

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 00:52:56 +0000,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    > Jim Richardson espoused:
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:18:05 +0000,
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:45:22 -0800 (PST),
    >>>> Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>>>> On 27 Dec, 20:14, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:31:22 -0800 (PST),
    >>>>>> Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> > I posted a URL, how is this a dirty trick ..
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> It's the same thing Erik did to Rex.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I really don't want to dig that up again, but you're not really
    >>>>> equating the above with what ewic did. Show me where you objected to
    >>>>> the below, I guess this is alright in your book ..

    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Crossposted to: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.homosexual, alt.os.linux,
    >>>>> comp.os.linux.misc, comp.lang.java.programmer
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Anyone Considering Hiring Roy Schestowitz. Check USENET First!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...8dea4de?hl=en&
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> don't make the foolish assumption that because someone doesn't post
    >>>> about something, that they must therefor agree with it.
    >>>
    >>> A simple logical analysis shows that to be a silly position to take.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Yet that is the position you took.
    >>

    >
    > Um? New Year's Eve cheer too early?
    >



    I don't think I can make it any clearer for you Mark, but just in case..
    you stated



    Show me where you objected to the below, I guess this is alright in your
    book ..






    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHeaEed90bcYOAWPYRAhqcAJ9vo4oYWKIB1SiobOIOcB BmfkJoPwCg7OZu
    Cws344KvUe4nTdQxCbbrrVU=
    =ahAh
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.

  15. Re: information technology specialist ..

    Jim Richardson espoused:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 00:52:56 +0000,
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:18:05 +0000,
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:45:22 -0800 (PST),
    >>>>> Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>>>>> On 27 Dec, 20:14, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:31:22 -0800 (PST),
    >>>>>>> Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> > I posted a URL, how is this a dirty trick ..
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It's the same thing Erik did to Rex.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I really don't want to dig that up again, but you're not really
    >>>>>> equating the above with what ewic did. Show me where you objected to
    >>>>>> the below, I guess this is alright in your book ..
    >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Crossposted to: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.homosexual, alt.os.linux,
    >>>>>> comp.os.linux.misc, comp.lang.java.programmer
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Anyone Considering Hiring Roy Schestowitz. Check USENET First!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...8dea4de?hl=en&
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> don't make the foolish assumption that because someone doesn't post
    >>>>> about something, that they must therefor agree with it.
    >>>>
    >>>> A simple logical analysis shows that to be a silly position to take.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Yet that is the position you took.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Um? New Year's Eve cheer too early?
    >>

    >
    >
    > I don't think I can make it any clearer for you Mark, but just in case..
    > you stated
    >
    >
    >
    > Show me where you objected to the below, I guess this is alright in your
    > book ..
    >
    >

    >
    >


    I think not:

    Message-ID: <33c50624-131c-4b91-a541-9f0300744809@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
    From: Doug Mentohl

    You need to go easier on the homebrew, Jim :-)

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  16. Re: information technology specialist ..

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 15:11:27 +0000,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    > Jim Richardson espoused:
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 00:52:56 +0000,
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:18:05 +0000,
    >>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:45:22 -0800 (PST),
    >>>>>> Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>>>>>> On 27 Dec, 20:14, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:31:22 -0800 (PST),
    >>>>>>>> Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> > I posted a URL, how is this a dirty trick ..
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> It's the same thing Erik did to Rex.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I really don't want to dig that up again, but you're not really
    >>>>>>> equating the above with what ewic did. Show me where you objected to
    >>>>>>> the below, I guess this is alright in your book ..
    >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Crossposted to: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.homosexual, alt.os.linux,
    >>>>>>> comp.os.linux.misc, comp.lang.java.programmer
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Anyone Considering Hiring Roy Schestowitz. Check USENET First!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...8dea4de?hl=en&
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> don't make the foolish assumption that because someone doesn't post
    >>>>>> about something, that they must therefor agree with it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A simple logical analysis shows that to be a silly position to take.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Yet that is the position you took.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Um? New Year's Eve cheer too early?
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> I don't think I can make it any clearer for you Mark, but just in case..
    >> you stated
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Show me where you objected to the below, I guess this is alright in your
    >> book ..
    >>
    >>

    >>
    >>

    >
    > I think not:
    >
    > Message-ID: <33c50624-131c-4b91-a541-9f0300744809@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
    > From: Doug Mentohl
    >



    Doh! you're right, it was Doug with the silly position, and you agreeing
    with me. Sorry, my bad

    > You need to go easier on the homebrew, Jim :-)
    >


    nah, just need to get more sleep.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHepuNd90bcYOAWPYRAjG1AJ0Yp4Xw62sVgxyxFMJWGr VZDi4SwACfdIZx
    q6rj9EdV05KpZPf7eJnYq7M=
    =RWRA
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    I have an understanding with my local police--I have them outgunned, but
    they have me outnumbered.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3