Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #32407 > unrolled thread
| Started by | flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-06-12 17:09 -0400 |
| Last post | 2011-06-13 05:47 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 170 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-12 17:09 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-12 17:59 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-12 18:01 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 05:48 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 08:27 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-13 10:34 +0100
[Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-06-13 06:37 -0400
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom Big Steel <Steel9901x22@9901x22Steel.com> - 2011-06-13 06:50 -0400
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-13 12:18 +0100
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 13:41 +0200
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-13 13:41 +0100
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-06-13 10:18 -0400
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-13 12:29 -0400
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom Chris <chrisdhaag@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-13 18:09 +0000
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-06-13 15:40 -0400
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-13 14:54 -0500
Re: [Troll] "chrisv" and liarmutt leg humping each other. one reach around away from a happy ending. "Pippa" <pippa@invalid.com> - 2011-06-13 15:59 -0400
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 01:27 +0200
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-14 17:00 -0700
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-13 12:33 +0100
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-13 08:20 -0500
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom "Pippa" <pippa@invalid.com> - 2011-06-13 09:42 -0400
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 16:18 +0200
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-13 13:07 -0400
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-13 13:18 -0400
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 19:23 +0200
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 20:17 +0200
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-06-13 15:41 -0400
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-13 12:47 -0700
Re: Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 12:53 -0700
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-13 14:50 -0500
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom "Pippa" <pippa@invalid.com> - 2011-06-13 15:51 -0400
Re: [Troll] Flounder, DFS, and "Hadron" creatin' dah Boom TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 23:50 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-13 19:24 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Clog_-_wog (®) <clog_-_wog@anonimous.eu> - 2011-06-13 15:02 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> - 2011-06-13 12:39 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 14:04 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> - 2011-06-13 13:24 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 14:42 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> - 2011-06-13 13:57 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 15:01 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> - 2011-06-13 14:12 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-13 08:30 -0500
Re: Time To flush the stupid turd "chrisv".. Hahahahha... "Pippa" <pippa@invalid.com> - 2011-06-13 09:44 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 06:20 -0700
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> - 2011-06-13 16:01 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-13 13:02 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 23:45 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-13 23:22 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 01:29 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Marti Van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> - 2011-06-14 02:45 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> - 2011-06-14 06:50 +0000
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 09:13 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 11:08 +0200
[Troll] Imbecility and dishonesty incarnate Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-06-14 06:31 -0400
Re: [Troll] Imbecility and dishonesty incarnate William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-14 11:50 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-14 07:23 -0500
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... "Feudo Maccari" <feudo@invalid.com> - 2011-06-14 09:18 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Marti Van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> - 2011-06-14 17:03 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Insulters Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-06-14 13:26 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Insulters chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-14 13:11 -0500
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Insulters Marti Van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> - 2011-06-14 20:43 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Insulters TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 01:20 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Insulters DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-14 20:45 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Insulters Marti Van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> - 2011-06-15 03:31 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Insulters flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-14 21:45 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Insulters Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2011-06-15 05:57 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Insulters Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> - 2011-06-15 07:31 +0000
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Insulters flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-15 10:57 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Insulters Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-06-15 06:14 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Insulters TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 01:16 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Insulters Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-06-15 06:09 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Insulters chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-15 07:34 -0500
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-06-14 10:24 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-14 09:45 -0500
Re: Time To flush useless turd "chrisv" down the toilet. "Feudo Maccari" <feudo@invalid.com> - 2011-06-14 10:47 -0400
Re: Time To flush useless turd "chrisv" down the toilet. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-06-14 10:54 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-14 10:11 -0500
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... "Feudo Maccari" <feudo@invalid.com> - 2011-06-14 11:15 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-14 12:23 -0500
Re: Time To flush useless turd "chrisv" down the toilet. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 19:02 +0200
Re: Time To flush useless turd "chrisv" down the toilet. Goblin <bytes4free@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-14 18:06 +0100
Re: Time To flush useless turd "Hadron" down the toilet. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-14 12:11 -0500
Re: Time To flush useless turd "Hadron" down the toilet. "Feudo Maccari" <feudo@invalid.com> - 2011-06-14 13:16 -0400
Re: Time To flush useless turd "chrisv" down the toilet. TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 20:29 +0200
Re: Time To flush useless turd "chrisv" down the toilet. TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 19:14 +0200
Re: Time To flush useless turd "chrisv" down the toilet. Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-06-14 13:21 -0400
Re: Time To flush useless turd "chrisv" down the toilet. William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-14 20:10 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-14 15:54 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Marti Van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> - 2011-06-15 04:30 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-15 10:27 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Chris <chrisdhaag@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-14 16:12 +0000
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-06-14 13:09 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2011-06-15 00:12 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 01:05 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 19:01 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-06-14 13:14 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 19:23 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-14 12:26 -0500
Re: Time To flush the "chrisv" turd... Hahahahha... "Feudo Maccari" <feudo@invalid.com> - 2011-06-14 13:38 -0400
Re: Time To flush the "chrisv" turd... Hahahahha... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-06-14 13:48 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 19:19 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-06-14 13:34 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 19:53 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-14 20:14 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 12:33 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2011-06-15 17:13 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-06-15 11:59 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2011-06-15 20:33 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-16 00:37 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-16 00:04 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Sinister Midget <fardblossom@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 18:11 -0500
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> - 2011-06-16 00:12 +0000
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> - 2011-06-16 00:32 -0700
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> - 2011-06-16 09:07 +0000
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-16 10:27 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-16 11:21 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2011-06-16 17:54 +0200
[Troll] A dope with a rope Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-06-16 12:55 -0400
Re: [Chris Ahlstrom] A pussy with no balls "Barb Dwyer" <barb@invalid.com> - 2011-06-16 13:09 -0400
Re: [Troll] A dope with a rope Big Steel <Steel9901x22@9901x22Steel.com> - 2011-06-16 13:18 -0400
Re: [Troll] A dope with a rope William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-16 18:20 +0100
Re: [Troll] A dope with a rope chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-16 12:40 -0500
Re: [Troll] A dope with a rope "Barb Dwyer" <barb@invalid.com> - 2011-06-16 14:02 -0400
Re: [Troll] A dope with a rope Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-16 19:56 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-16 14:30 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 07:26 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-17 01:33 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Bjørn Steensrud <bjornst+usenet@skogkatt.homelinux.org> - 2011-06-17 11:16 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-17 10:31 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Chris <chrisdhaag@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-16 15:43 +0000
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> - 2011-06-17 09:35 +0000
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-17 10:36 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 16:47 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> - 2011-06-16 12:50 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-18 02:15 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-18 10:21 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-18 13:10 +0200
Time for some scripting! Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-06-18 06:59 -0400
Re: Time for some scripting! flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-18 10:40 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 09:20 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Marti Van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> - 2011-06-14 16:11 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 01:13 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Marti Van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> - 2011-06-15 04:10 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-15 10:28 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-15 07:40 -0500
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... "Rick O'Shea" <rick@invalid.com> - 2011-06-15 09:22 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 15:29 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Hardon <hardon.quirk@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 13:39 +0000
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-15 09:56 -0500
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-15 18:25 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-15 10:54 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-15 11:17 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-15 11:47 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 09:17 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-14 10:48 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Marti Van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> - 2011-06-14 17:56 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 19:26 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-14 10:40 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Marti Van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> - 2011-06-14 19:16 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-14 10:36 +0100
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 14:02 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 14:57 +0200
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-13 09:15 -0500
Re: Time To flush the useless asshole "chrisv"... Hahahahha... "Pippa" <pippa@invalid.com> - 2011-06-13 10:17 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-13 09:22 -0500
Re: Time To flush useless turds like "chrisv"... Hahahahha... "Pippa" <pippa@invalid.com> - 2011-06-13 10:48 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-13 12:19 -0400
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-13 08:16 -0500
Re: Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 05:47 +0200
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-14 13:48 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Time To flush the "chrisv" turd... Hahahahha... |
| Message-ID | <it86tu$mtq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32944 |
"Feudo Maccari" <feudo@invalid.com> wrote in message news:it86b8$ft6$1@speranza.aioe.org... > > piece of shit asshole "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:0a6fv6he306v7029dkndr6bn7qtrbd7fh8@4ax.com... > > go fsck yourself you mentally ill piece of shit stalker. > > "chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a piece of shit. > > What I find remarkable is that useless turd like chrisv has nothing better to do then to reply to 99% of the posts I make. He's like some stupid shit covered puppy that follows me everywhere I go and won't leave me alone. Perhaps the idiot is stupid enough to think he's my equal or peer and thinks I give a rats ass what he thinks. In reality I'd much rather listen to some urine covered homeless bum tell me his thoughts on the global economy. Ahhh - enough already. I've wasted too much time as it is talking about the "turd." I feel the need to bathe. BTW - Keep up the good work OSOK. You're a zany and insightful poster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-14 19:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20110614191417.352@usenet.drumscum.be> |
| In reply to | #32848 |
On 2011-06-14, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel: > "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:0q1uywvqam.fsf@news.eternal-september.org... >> Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> writes: >>> On 2011-06-14, Marti Van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> >>> wrote: >>>> On 14-06-11 01:29, TomB wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, that's the one. Classic. The checks he's talking about >>>>> (and which do /not/ take 'hours' by the way) are controlled with >>>>> the >> >> Yes they can take ages. You are wrong. Why do you continue to make >> a fool of yourself by making silly claims that are easily >> disproven? >> >>>>> tune2fs command, not by fstab. The fstab fs_passno field >>>>> controls the order in which fsck checks the filesystems at boot >>>>> time, and will only trigger an actual check if a filesystem is >>>>> marked dirty. >> >> What is your point exactly? You clearly dont understnd the issue >> and are making things up to big yourself up again. >> >> My POINT was that the check at sytem start can land you in the >> shit. >> >> AND you are WRONG. The defaults here are to check every N reboots. >> >> Your cluelessness seems to know no bounds. > > Wrong on another count as well. The other day I booted from my > Ubuntu HDD drive. The *default* configuration is such that I saw > this message: > > /dev/xxx/yyy has gone <N> days without being checked, check > forced. > > By *default* Ubuntu (the most widely used desktop Linux by far) will > force a filesystem check periodically. Yes, of course. I never said otherwise. But those checks are *not* set in /etc/fstab; they are set up with the tune2fs command. The fs checks defined in /etc/fstab run at *every* boot, but will *only* result in a full check on dirty filesystems. Now think this through, perhaps read some manpages, and then come back saying I wasn't wrong at all. -- http://twitter.com/drumscum | http://drumscum.be I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter. ~ Winston Churchill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-14 13:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <it862f$gv5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32924 |
"TomB" <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote in message news:20110614191417.352@usenet.drumscum.be... > On 2011-06-14, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel: >> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:0q1uywvqam.fsf@news.eternal-september.org... >>> Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> writes: >>>> On 2011-06-14, Marti Van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 14-06-11 01:29, TomB wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, that's the one. Classic. The checks he's talking about >>>>>> (and which do /not/ take 'hours' by the way) are controlled with >>>>>> the >>> >>> Yes they can take ages. You are wrong. Why do you continue to make >>> a fool of yourself by making silly claims that are easily >>> disproven? >>> >>>>>> tune2fs command, not by fstab. The fstab fs_passno field >>>>>> controls the order in which fsck checks the filesystems at boot >>>>>> time, and will only trigger an actual check if a filesystem is >>>>>> marked dirty. >>> >>> What is your point exactly? You clearly dont understnd the issue >>> and are making things up to big yourself up again. >>> >>> My POINT was that the check at sytem start can land you in the >>> shit. >>> >>> AND you are WRONG. The defaults here are to check every N reboots. >>> >>> Your cluelessness seems to know no bounds. >> >> Wrong on another count as well. The other day I booted from my >> Ubuntu HDD drive. The *default* configuration is such that I saw >> this message: >> >> /dev/xxx/yyy has gone <N> days without being checked, check >> forced. >> >> By *default* Ubuntu (the most widely used desktop Linux by far) will >> force a filesystem check periodically. > > Yes, of course. I never said otherwise. But those checks are *not* set > in /etc/fstab; they are set up with the tune2fs command. The fs checks > defined in /etc/fstab run at *every* boot, but will *only* result in a > full check on dirty filesystems. > Since there is no field/column in fstab to set the number-of-days between checks interval it clearly won't be there. But when I read (out of context since I've kept out of this thread) that "fsck *only* runs if the filesystem is dirty" it clearly wasn't right. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the user whether it's an entry in fstab or something else because fsck can, does and will get run for a variety of reasons. > Now think this through, perhaps read some manpages, and then come back > saying I wasn't wrong at all. > Actually it can literally take "hours" for fsck to run. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fsck+hours
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-14 19:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20110614194108.706@usenet.drumscum.be> |
| In reply to | #32941 |
On 2011-06-14, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel: > "TomB" <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:20110614191417.352@usenet.drumscum.be... >> On 2011-06-14, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel: > >>> Wrong on another count as well. The other day I booted from my >>> Ubuntu HDD drive. The *default* configuration is such that I saw >>> this message: >>> >>> /dev/xxx/yyy has gone <N> days without being checked, check >>> forced. >>> >>> By *default* Ubuntu (the most widely used desktop Linux by far) >>> will force a filesystem check periodically. >> >> Yes, of course. I never said otherwise. But those checks are *not* >> set in /etc/fstab; they are set up with the tune2fs command. The fs >> checks defined in /etc/fstab run at *every* boot, but will *only* >> result in a full check on dirty filesystems. >> > > Since there is no field/column in fstab to set the number-of-days > between checks interval it clearly won't be there. No. As I said: the filesystem checks triggered by the fs_passnum field in fstab happen *every* boot cycle. The fs_passnum field has *nothing* to do with the periodic fs check you are talking about above. Those are part of the filesystem itself and are controlled with the tune2fs command. > But when I read (out of context Then start reading it *in* context before you start claiming that I'm wrong. In a nutshell: Hadron thinks the periodic fs checks are controlled with /etc/fstab. I've explained to him for the n-th time that they aren't. And I'm 100% correct. RTFM. > since I've kept out of this thread) that "fsck *only* runs if the > filesystem is dirty" it clearly wasn't right. No, I said that the fscks triggered by fs_passnum run at *every* boot, but only trigger a /full check/ on dirty filesystems. > Ultimately it doesn't matter to the user Irrelevant to this *technical* discussion. And even then, it *does* matter to the user that the periodic checks can be configured, yes even disabled with tune2fs. > whether it's an entry in fstab or something else because fsck can, > does and will get run for a variety of reasons. Yes, /two/ reasons. The periodic checks built into the filesystem and the checks dictated by /etc/fstab. >> Now think this through, perhaps read some manpages, and then come >> back saying I wasn't wrong at all. > > Actually it can literally take "hours" for fsck to run. > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fsck+hours With an hopelessly b0rked filesystem, yes. As a general rule: not even close. -- http://twitter.com/drumscum | http://drumscum.be Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to stay on my toes... ~ Frank Drebin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-14 20:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <hiokc8-sp9.ln1@linuxnetwork.alpha.org> |
| In reply to | #32949 |
In reply to TomB who posted: > On 2011-06-14, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel: >> "TomB" <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:20110614191417.352@usenet.drumscum.be... >>> On 2011-06-14, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel: >> >>>> Wrong on another count as well. The other day I booted from my >>>> Ubuntu HDD drive. The *default* configuration is such that I saw >>>> this message: >>>> >>>> /dev/xxx/yyy has gone <N> days without being checked, check >>>> forced. >>>> >>>> By *default* Ubuntu (the most widely used desktop Linux by far) >>>> will force a filesystem check periodically. >>> >>> Yes, of course. I never said otherwise. But those checks are *not* >>> set in /etc/fstab; they are set up with the tune2fs command. The fs >>> checks defined in /etc/fstab run at *every* boot, but will *only* >>> result in a full check on dirty filesystems. >>> >> >> Since there is no field/column in fstab to set the number-of-days >> between checks interval it clearly won't be there. > > No. As I said: the filesystem checks triggered by the fs_passnum field > in fstab happen *every* boot cycle. The fs_passnum field has *nothing* > to do with the periodic fs check you are talking about above. Those > are part of the filesystem itself and are controlled with the tune2fs > command. > >> But when I read (out of context > > Then start reading it *in* context before you start claiming that I'm > wrong. In a nutshell: Hadron thinks the periodic fs checks are > controlled with /etc/fstab. I've explained to him for the n-th time > that they aren't. And I'm 100% correct. RTFM. > >> since I've kept out of this thread) that "fsck *only* runs if the >> filesystem is dirty" it clearly wasn't right. > > No, I said that the fscks triggered by fs_passnum run at *every* boot, > but only trigger a /full check/ on dirty filesystems. > >> Ultimately it doesn't matter to the user > > Irrelevant to this *technical* discussion. And even then, it *does* > matter to the user that the periodic checks can be configured, yes > even disabled with tune2fs. > >> whether it's an entry in fstab or something else because fsck can, >> does and will get run for a variety of reasons. > > Yes, /two/ reasons. The periodic checks built into the filesystem and > the checks dictated by /etc/fstab. > >>> Now think this through, perhaps read some manpages, and then come >>> back saying I wasn't wrong at all. >> >> Actually it can literally take "hours" for fsck to run. >> >> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fsck+hours > > With an hopelessly b0rked filesystem, yes. As a general rule: not even > close. Right, & guess who has a hopelessy b0rked system (& is it any wonder after what that bufoon has posted!). Clue: nym starts with "H". ;-) -- Earth is 98% full...please delete anyone you can. "Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves. Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods." -- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-15 12:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qu7h8ne63x.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #32941 |
"Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> writes: > > Actually it can literally take "hours" for fsck to run. > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fsck+hours Which he would know if he really used Debian ... I have no reason to make this up. Is why I would prfer the check at shutdown and not start up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-15 17:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <itai7g$eem$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33069 |
Hadron wrote: > "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> writes: > >> >> Actually it can literally take "hours" for fsck to run. >> >> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fsck+hours > > Which he would know if he really used Debian ... > > I have no reason to make this up. Is why I would prfer the check at > shutdown and not start up. And *if* you really where using linux (very rhetorical, naturally. You don't) you would write a one-liner to be executed at appropriate shutdowns to do the fsck. Because then the fsck at startup would not occur at all. Which you can easily disable, to boot But you are unable to do so. And the main reason (besides you beingt extremely stupid) is your lack of running linux
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-15 11:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ital1f$qn9$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33111 |
Peter K??hlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > Hadron wrote: > >> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> writes: >> >>> Actually it can literally take "hours" for fsck to run. >>> >>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fsck+hours >> >> Which he would know if he really used Debian ... >> >> I have no reason to make this up. Is why I would prfer the check at >> shutdown and not start up. > > And *if* you really where using linux (very rhetorical, naturally. You > don't) you would write a one-liner to be executed at appropriate shutdowns > to do the fsck. > Because then the fsck at startup would not occur at all. > > Which you can easily disable, to boot > > But you are unable to do so. And the main reason (besides you beingt > extremely stupid) is your lack of running linux That link points to this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fsck which points to this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minced_oath In the case of our trolls, that would be a "mincing" oath. Anyway, the fsck of my 256 Gb ext3 partition, when it occurs, takes about 10 minutes. I'm sure it would take a lot longer for an ext2 or NTFS partition. -- "Thank heaven for startups; without them we'd never have any advances." -- Seymour Cray
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-15 20:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <itattm$um4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33129 |
Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Peter K??hlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> Hadron wrote: >> >>> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> Actually it can literally take "hours" for fsck to run. >>>> >>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fsck+hours >>> >>> Which he would know if he really used Debian ... >>> >>> I have no reason to make this up. Is why I would prfer the check at >>> shutdown and not start up. >> >> And *if* you really where using linux (very rhetorical, naturally. You >> don't) you would write a one-liner to be executed at appropriate >> shutdowns to do the fsck. >> Because then the fsck at startup would not occur at all. >> >> Which you can easily disable, to boot >> >> But you are unable to do so. And the main reason (besides you beingt >> extremely stupid) is your lack of running linux > > That link points to this one: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fsck > > which points to this one: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minced_oath > > In the case of our trolls, that would be a "mincing" oath. > > Anyway, the fsck of my 256 Gb ext3 partition, when it occurs, takes about > 10 > minutes. I'm sure it would take a lot longer for an ext2 or NTFS > partition. I use currently only Ext4 partitions. Those take around 10 Minutes for 1.5 TByte You see, Hadron is right: It takes "ages" for linux fsck to run. What an incompetent lying nincompoop
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-16 00:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20110616003029.983@usenet.drumscum.be> |
| In reply to | #33069 |
On 2011-06-15, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron: > "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> writes: > >> Actually it can literally take "hours" for fsck to run. >> >> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fsck+hours > > Which he would know if he really used Debian ... Rofl, sure. In any case, if you regularly run into massive fs checks at boot time you're definitely doing something wrong. > I have no reason to make this up. Is why I would prfer the check at > shutdown and not start up. Jezus Tapdancin' Christ, stay the whining. If the fs checks at boot time bother you so much, just disable them. -- http://twitter.com/drumscum | http://drumscum.be Geography is just physics slowed down, with a couple of trees stuck in it. ~ Terry Pratchett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-16 00:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3dqnc8-6de.ln1@linuxnetwork.alpha.org> |
| In reply to | #33214 |
In reply to TomB who posted: > On 2011-06-15, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron: >> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> writes: >> >>> Actually it can literally take "hours" for fsck to run. >>> >>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fsck+hours >> >> Which he would know if he really used Debian ... > > Rofl, sure. > > In any case, if you regularly run into massive fs checks at boot time > you're definitely doing something wrong. Nah, not the Hadron troll? Surely it's everyone else that's doing something wrong? <grin> >> I have no reason to make this up. Is why I would prfer the check at >> shutdown and not start up. > > Jezus Tapdancin' Christ, stay the whining. If the fs checks at boot > time bother you so much, just disable them. Someone disable the trolling M$ fanboi. -- Never violate the Prime Directory! \ "Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves. Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods." -- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sinister Midget <fardblossom@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-15 18:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0qqnc8-vqd.ln1@home.harry.net> |
| In reply to | #33214 |
On 2011-06-15, TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> claimed: > On 2011-06-15, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron: >> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> writes: >> >>> Actually it can literally take "hours" for fsck to run. >>> >>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fsck+hours >> >> Which he would know if he really used Debian ... > > Rofl, sure. > > In any case, if you regularly run into massive fs checks at boot time > you're definitely doing something wrong. Such as breathing. S/H/It should stop that and see if all of the problems quit, too. Just holding one's breath may not do, though. Too short. Maybe a nice, tight plastic bag over the head would last long enough to test it and be sure. -- "Stupid" is a boundless concept.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-16 00:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrniviiij.51e.ZekeGregory@netscape.net> |
| In reply to | #33214 |
On 2011-06-15, TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2011-06-15, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron: >> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> writes: >> >>> Actually it can literally take "hours" for fsck to run. >>> >>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fsck+hours >> >> Which he would know if he really used Debian ... > > Rofl, sure. > > In any case, if you regularly run into massive fs checks at boot time > you're definitely doing something wrong. > >> I have no reason to make this up. Is why I would prfer the check at >> shutdown and not start up. > > Jezus Tapdancin' Christ, stay the whining. If the fs checks at boot > time bother you so much, just disable them. I still can't understand why they are a problem. Modern journalling filesystems start up in no time at all. I have my filesystems spread between /boot /usr /var /opt and /home. This means that filesystem checks are staggered... and no filesystem is too large. Modern ext4 filesystems aren't like the old ext2 startups. I think the troll is googling ext2 filesystem problems... people with failing disks will take forever to check. Hours???? The troll obviously doesn't run Linux. -- Regards, Gregory. Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-16 00:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0bb5d1a-737c-46b9-9f3e-52d9a6691108@s9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #33242 |
On Jun 16, 3:12 am, Gregory Shearman <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> wrote: > > I still can't understand why they are a problem. Modern journalling > filesystems start up in no time at all. I have my filesystems spread > between /boot /usr /var /opt and /home. This means that filesystem > checks are staggered... and no filesystem is too large. Modern ext4 > filesystems aren't like the old ext2 startups. > > I think the troll is googling ext2 filesystem problems... people with > failing disks will take forever to check. > > Hours???? The troll obviously doesn't run Linux. > > -- > Regards, > Gregory. > Genpoo Linux - Penguin Power! Yeah right. According to you, everybody who points out a problem with Linux is a troll. Everybody who points out a problem with homosexuality and homos is a homophobe. I think I see the problem here. It's you. RL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-16 09:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnivjhuf.51e.ZekeGregory@netscape.net> |
| In reply to | #33262 |
On 2011-06-16, RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 3:12 am, Gregory Shearman <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> wrote: > >> >> I still can't understand why they are a problem. Modern journalling >> filesystems start up in no time at all. I have my filesystems spread >> between /boot /usr /var /opt and /home. This means that filesystem >> checks are staggered... and no filesystem is too large. Modern ext4 >> filesystems aren't like the old ext2 startups. >> >> I think the troll is googling ext2 filesystem problems... people with >> failing disks will take forever to check. >> >> Hours???? The troll obviously doesn't run Linux. >> >> Genpoo Linux - Penguin Power! Childish editing of MY text. Grow up. > Yeah right. According to you, everybody who points out a problem with > Linux is a troll. No, The Insane Quark Troll is a troll. Your logic is flawed. > Everybody who points out a problem with > homosexuality and homos is a homophobe. That's correct. Why would anyone have a problem with homosexuality, unless they feared it? Elementary... > I think I see the problem here. It's you. I don't have a problem with homosexuals or with EXT(2,3,4) filesystems. I use them on all my machines. The Insane Quark Troll believes that filesystem checks take HOURS... Obviously, the problem is the IQT and YOU. -- Regards, Gregory. Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-16 10:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7tuoc8-68a.ln1@linuxnetwork.alpha.org> |
| In reply to | #33269 |
In reply to Gregory Shearman who posted: > On 2011-06-16, RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 16, 3:12 am, Gregory Shearman <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> I still can't understand why they are a problem. Modern journalling >>> filesystems start up in no time at all. I have my filesystems spread >>> between /boot /usr /var /opt and /home. This means that filesystem >>> checks are staggered... and no filesystem is too large. Modern ext4 >>> filesystems aren't like the old ext2 startups. >>> >>> I think the troll is googling ext2 filesystem problems... people with >>> failing disks will take forever to check. >>> >>> Hours???? The troll obviously doesn't run Linux. >>> >>> Genpoo Linux - Penguin Power! > > Childish editing of MY text. Grow up. > >> Yeah right. According to you, everybody who points out a problem with >> Linux is a troll. > > No, The Insane Quark Troll is a troll. Your logic is flawed. He's even admitted he's a troll: Message-ID: <n145s4-517.ln1@news.individual.net> >> Everybody who points out a problem with >> homosexuality and homos is a homophobe. > > That's correct. Why would anyone have a problem with homosexuality, > unless they feared it? Elementary... > >> I think I see the problem here. It's you. > > I don't have a problem with homosexuals or with EXT(2,3,4) filesystems. > I use them on all my machines. > > The Insane Quark Troll believes that filesystem checks take HOURS... > Obviously, the problem is the IQT and YOU. +1 -- Earth is 98% full...please delete anyone you can. "Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves. Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods." -- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-16 11:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1e3dq06ai0etx$.u5cua83olfdu.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #33269 |
On 16 Jun 2011 09:07:28 GMT, Gregory Shearman wrote: > On 2011-06-16, RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 16, 3:12 am, Gregory Shearman <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> I still can't understand why they are a problem. Modern journalling >>> filesystems start up in no time at all. I have my filesystems spread >>> between /boot /usr /var /opt and /home. This means that filesystem >>> checks are staggered... and no filesystem is too large. Modern ext4 >>> filesystems aren't like the old ext2 startups. >>> >>> I think the troll is googling ext2 filesystem problems... people with >>> failing disks will take forever to check. >>> >>> Hours???? The troll obviously doesn't run Linux. >>> >>> Genpoo Linux - Penguin Power! > > Childish editing of MY text. Grow up. You don't seem to have a problem when Chris Ahlstrom does it. Hypocrite. >> Yeah right. According to you, everybody who points out a problem with >> Linux is a troll. > > No, The Insane Quark Troll is a troll. Your logic is flawed. According to your behavior here, anyone who disagrees with Linux and the Linux zealot agenda is a troll. >> Everybody who points out a problem with >> homosexuality and homos is a homophobe. > > That's correct. Why would anyone have a problem with homosexuality, > unless they feared it? Elementary... Because it's disgusting. I have a problem with people littering, that doesn't make *me* a "litterer" . BTW by your own reasoning, people who vehemately attack those who find homosexuality disgusting, must be homosexuals themselves. Right Geoff M. Fitton? >> I think I see the problem here. It's you. > > I don't have a problem with homosexuals or with EXT(2,3,4) filesystems. > I use them on all my machines. Homosexuals or EXT (2,3,4) filesystems? > The Insane Quark Troll believes that filesystem checks take HOURS... It *can* take hours. You show your ignorance again. -- flatfish+++ Please visit our hall of Linux idiots. http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/ Watching Linux Fail: http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/ Linux's dismal desktop market share: http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/05/12/the-top-20-strongholds-for-desktop-linux/ Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead "By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory." http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html Desktop Linux on Life Support: http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/is-linux-on-the-desktop-dead--961508
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-16 17:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <itd90b$126$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33301 |
flatfish+++ wrote: >> No, The Insane Quark Troll is a troll. Your logic is flawed. > > According to your behavior here, anyone who disagrees with Linux and the > Linux zealot agenda is a troll. Hadron Larry is far worse than just a troll. He is even nearly as filthy as you are, flatfish Gary Stewart > >> The Insane Quark Troll believes that filesystem checks take HOURS... > > It *can* take hours. > You show your ignorance again. Oh, it certainly can. If you have FS of several TByte in size. Lets assume several dozen TByte. *Then* it can take hours. Under real circumstances Hadron Larry is full of it. As you are
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-16 12:55 -0400 |
| Subject | [Troll] A dope with a rope |
| Message-ID | <itdcn2$m35$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33305 |
Peter K??hlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > flatfish+++ wrote: > >>> No, The Insane Quark Troll is a troll. Your logic is flawed. >> >> According to your behavior here, anyone who disagrees with Linux and the >> Linux zealot agenda is a troll. > > Hadron Larry is far worse than just a troll. > He is even nearly as filthy as you are, flatfish Gary Stewart Isn't it funny how the trolls get so inflamed when a poster edits their post (and flags it!!) to turn their filth around on them? -- I don't post here anymore and haven't in quite some time although I lurk and laugh because you goobs are so easily sucked into believing what you want to believe yet ignoring the obvious. -- flatfish+++ <1dy9n46qou3iy$.1ui86t8lu73oh$.dlg@40tude.net>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Barb Dwyer" <barb@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-16 13:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [Chris Ahlstrom] A pussy with no balls |
| Message-ID | <itddbo$kas$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33308 |
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message news:itdcn2$m35$2@dont-email.me... > > > Isn't it funny how the trolls get so inflamed when a poster edits their > post > (and flags it!!) to turn their filth around on them? isn't it funny how some "men" are such a pussy that they have to beg their own wife for an allowance like creepy. it is no wonder that Chris Ahlstrom's wife treats him worse than a used week old douche bag. he is a pathetic pussy who is laughed at behind is back. "I'm not worthy to wipe your pee-pee" <giggle>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web