Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350884 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-19 21:54 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-04-26 19:54 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 443 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-19 21:54 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-19 15:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-19 22:13 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye brexit insanity <aslsfijasslkjfhwe22jads@oasdfasfs.org> - 2016-04-19 22:22 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-19 15:44 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-19 17:47 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-20 21:51 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-20 15:06 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 15:27 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-21 12:13 -0500
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-21 20:13 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 12:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-21 13:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 13:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-21 15:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 00:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 10:13 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 01:25 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 14:22 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-22 07:35 -0500
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:27 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 23:21 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:03 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:23 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:33 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 01:00 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 02:07 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 02:34 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 02:56 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:06 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:29 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:32 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:46 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:49 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:55 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:08 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 12:32 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 12:34 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-23 08:08 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:23 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:22 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 09:41 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:53 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:33 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 10:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 10:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 11:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 11:34 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 12:20 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 10:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 16:01 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-24 13:36 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-24 16:36 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 23:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:05 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 12:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:12 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 12:18 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 12:58 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 13:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 13:17 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 13:20 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 14:31 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 23:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-24 17:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-23 20:00 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 23:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 15:58 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 10:33 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 18:52 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 12:00 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 19:31 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 12:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 21:12 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:48 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-25 22:14 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 15:43 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-25 23:07 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 16:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 02:13 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 02:46 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:50 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:49 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 02:57 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:59 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 03:35 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 20:46 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 03:58 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 04:13 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:22 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 04:41 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:50 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:09 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:39 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:41 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:58 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:59 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 06:06 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 08:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 09:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 09:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 09:48 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 09:54 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 09:56 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 10:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 16:57 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 10:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 05:38 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-27 00:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 05:29 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-27 00:36 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:18 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-27 20:06 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-28 04:15 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-28 15:32 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-26 06:25 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-26 06:37 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:49 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-26 06:58 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:12 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-24 15:11 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-25 13:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 13:43 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-25 18:16 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-25 15:20 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 14:58 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-26 15:48 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:45 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:59 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:13 -0700
Plonk Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:57 -0400
Re: Plonk "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 20:15 -0400
Re: Plonk Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:02 -0400
Keep talking Chris Ahlstrom Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:19 -0400
Re: Plonk "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 17:46 -0400
Re: Plonk Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 23:30 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:32 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:30 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:32 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 04:55 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-27 00:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-27 04:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 05:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 06:06 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 07:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 08:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 08:30 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 09:56 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 10:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 12:44 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 13:44 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 14:19 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 13:07 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 16:38 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:36 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 18:07 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 15:20 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:48 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 20:44 -0400
"Richand King", yet another nym of a long-time troll Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:00 -0400
Ask Chris Ahlstrom about.... Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:22 -0400
Re: "Richand King", yet another nym of a long-time troll chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:48 -0500
Re: "Richand King", yet another nym of a long-time troll William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-25 14:07 +0100
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 19:04 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-22 22:53 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 23:24 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-23 13:35 +0100
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-23 08:04 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:33 -0500
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-25 10:14 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 10:50 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-25 10:53 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 12:01 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-23 08:10 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-23 13:31 +0100
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:29 -0500
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-25 09:28 -0400
Marek Novotny appreciates the beauty of certain 1990's tech Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:45 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom Makes an ASS of himself again Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:11 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny appreciates the beauty of certain 1990's tech William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-23 13:30 +0100
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:42 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom... Asshole of the year. Just ask Jayne Ahlstrom, his wife. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:07 -0400
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 18:29 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:32 +0200
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 19:40 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 05:15 +0200
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 20:31 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-23 07:28 -0400
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 13:43 +0200
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 06:56 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-23 14:27 -0400
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 11:46 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-24 17:49 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-24 18:35 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-23 14:26 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:42 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 10:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 12:45 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:08 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:54 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 15:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:16 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 16:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:18 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:59 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:04 -0700
A Big Appil beam in his eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:55 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:03 -0700
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:01 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:07 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom's Obsession With People He Claims to Have Filtered. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:18 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-22 20:52 -0500
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:08 -0700
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 20:11 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 12:54 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 20:02 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 13:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:25 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:46 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 15:14 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:17 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-21 22:16 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-21 20:23 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 12:53 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-21 23:07 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 19:44 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 23:58 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 10:10 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 01:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 10:58 +0100
The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 05:40 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 11:02 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 11:44 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 00:31 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:25 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 15:09 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 12:31 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 22:57 +0200
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 13:58 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:53 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-25 11:11 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:18 -0500
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:40 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:52 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:02 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:03 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom a Pansy... Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:15 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-22 20:55 -0500
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:39 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:34 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 02:51 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-23 10:04 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 06:46 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 09:50 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-19 19:40 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-20 21:10 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 12:07 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-20 16:42 +0100
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 12:16 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 21:42 +0100
A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Drummer"<drummer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 05:17 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 06:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 07:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 07:20 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 07:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 07:56 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 08:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 08:16 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 08:46 -0700
His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-26 20:41 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 14:21 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 14:24 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 18:27 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 15:37 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 18:55 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 16:48 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 16:55 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:09 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 20:36 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 10:11 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:07 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:11 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:18 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:29 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:38 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:47 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 01:03 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 18:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 01:26 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 18:37 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 02:48 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-27 06:25 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 07:49 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:54 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 08:11 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:59 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 16:33 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 08:52 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 17:35 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-27 15:57 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 13:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 10:07 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 10:19 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 20:59 +0200
Thing Digest chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:33 -0500
Re: Thing Digest vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 20:18 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:05 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 00:14 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:23 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 00:42 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:51 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-27 20:32 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:59 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 02:40 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 10:18 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:00 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 07:57 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 16:37 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 09:03 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 13:07 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 17:45 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 16:23 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 10:24 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 10:30 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 11:18 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 12:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 20:15 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 13:33 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 21:31 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:35 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 14:54 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 14:42 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:51 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 15:00 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 21:53 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:59 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 15:35 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 20:34 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 13:48 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:29 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:36 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:48 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 15:01 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 15:49 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 23:12 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 17:27 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 23:12 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 23:18 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 17:25 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 00:53 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:06 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 01:33 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:50 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 02:03 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 05:23 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 23:44 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 07:14 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 00:42 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 08:26 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-28 10:11 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 06:48 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 06:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 23:48 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 17:00 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-28 06:34 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 20:49 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 13:51 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 17:29 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:54 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:04 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 01:13 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 01:32 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:45 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:12 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:11 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:29 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:58 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:03 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 03:19 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:35 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 10:47 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:04 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:30 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 03:00 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:08 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 03:29 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:41 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 09:09 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 19:28 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 13:43 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 10:12 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 07:24 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 10:31 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 13:54 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 14:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:21 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 14:30 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 09:54 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 11:21 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 11:48 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 09:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 09:53 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-27 20:11 -0600
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 02:11 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 02:48 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 10:17 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 07:21 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 11:48 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 20:37 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:45 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 10:49 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 20:01 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 02:19 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 07:26 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 09:48 -0500
A Big anti-Linux K00k Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 19:54 -0400
Page 6 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 23 Next page →
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 21:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfms29$k5l$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351902 |
On 2016-04-25 9:41 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>> >>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part >>>>> of the subject under discussion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>> >>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>> >>>> Yes or no: >>>> >>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>> >>> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation >>> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing >>> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." >>> >> >> Failure to answer the question noted. > > The answer was a conditional "yes". Failure to read noted. > > No. Another question, which was not asked was answered "yes".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 05:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <thjgud02.afau@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351904 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> On 2016-04-25 9:41 PM, owl wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>> On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote:
>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part
>>>>>> of the subject under discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes or no:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links
>>>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"?
>>>>
>>>> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation
>>>> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing
>>>> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Failure to answer the question noted.
>>
>> The answer was a conditional "yes". Failure to read noted.
>>
>>
>
> No. Another question, which was not asked was answered "yes".
No. Pay attention:
IF ( The implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what
led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks )
THEN ( "Yes," I think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory
hardlinks to do what it does is actually support for the idea
that "OS X is crap" )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 22:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfmtdn$ml9$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351907 |
On 2016-04-25 10:09 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-25 9:41 PM, owl wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part >>>>>>> of the subject under discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>>>> >>>>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes or no: >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>>> >>>>> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation >>>>> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing >>>>> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." >>>>> >>>> >>>> Failure to answer the question noted. >>> >>> The answer was a conditional "yes". Failure to read noted. >>> >>> >> >> No. Another question, which was not asked was answered "yes". > > No. Pay attention: > > IF ( The implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what > led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks ) > > THEN ( "Yes," I think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory > hardlinks to do what it does is actually support for the idea > that "OS X is crap" ) > As I said: it answered a question that was not asked. Try again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 05:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjfo3.afa3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351909 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-25 10:09 PM, owl wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2016-04-25 9:41 PM, owl wrote: >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part >>>>>>>> of the subject under discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes or no: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>>>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>>>> >>>>>> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation >>>>>> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing >>>>>> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Failure to answer the question noted. >>>> >>>> The answer was a conditional "yes". Failure to read noted. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> No. Another question, which was not asked was answered "yes". >> >> No. Pay attention: >> >> IF ( The implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what >> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks ) >> >> THEN ( "Yes," I think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory >> hardlinks to do what it does is actually support for the idea >> that "OS X is crap" ) >> > > As I said: it answered a question that was not asked. > > Try again. LOL. They just don't come any slower than you, do they? This was your question: <quote> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? </quote> My answer is a conditional "yes." This is the condition: <quote> if the implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks </quote>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 22:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfmv2h$pl6$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351911 |
On 2016-04-25 10:39 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-25 10:09 PM, owl wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-25 9:41 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part >>>>>>>>> of the subject under discussion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes or no: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>>>>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation >>>>>>> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing >>>>>>> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Failure to answer the question noted. >>>>> >>>>> The answer was a conditional "yes". Failure to read noted. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> No. Another question, which was not asked was answered "yes". >>> >>> No. Pay attention: >>> >>> IF ( The implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what >>> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks ) >>> >>> THEN ( "Yes," I think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory >>> hardlinks to do what it does is actually support for the idea >>> that "OS X is crap" ) >>> >> >> As I said: it answered a question that was not asked. >> >> Try again. > > LOL. They just don't come any slower than you, do they? > > This was your question: > <quote> > Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links > to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? > </quote> > > My answer is a conditional "yes." > > This is the condition: > <quote> > if the implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what > led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks > </quote> > It is a strawman you have set up. If the reason that Linux users are insufferable little pricks is the reason that no one wants to use Linux... ...then the answer to whether Linux sucks is "yes".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 05:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdow03.a@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351912 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-25 10:39 PM, owl wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2016-04-25 10:09 PM, owl wrote: >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:41 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part >>>>>>>>>> of the subject under discussion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes or no: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>>>>>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation >>>>>>>> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing >>>>>>>> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Failure to answer the question noted. >>>>>> >>>>>> The answer was a conditional "yes". Failure to read noted. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No. Another question, which was not asked was answered "yes". >>>> >>>> No. Pay attention: >>>> >>>> IF ( The implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what >>>> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks ) >>>> >>>> THEN ( "Yes," I think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory >>>> hardlinks to do what it does is actually support for the idea >>>> that "OS X is crap" ) >>>> >>> >>> As I said: it answered a question that was not asked. >>> >>> Try again. >> >> LOL. They just don't come any slower than you, do they? >> >> This was your question: >> <quote> >> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >> </quote> >> >> My answer is a conditional "yes." >> >> This is the condition: >> <quote> >> if the implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what >> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks >> </quote> >> > > It is a strawman you have set up. > > If the reason that Linux users are insufferable little pricks is the > reason that no one wants to use Linux... > > ...then the answer to whether Linux sucks is "yes". No strawman.. Do I think that the fact that you use gasoline in your mop bucket is the reason you suck as a janitor? Yes, if your choice to use gasoline in your mop bucket is what caused the Burger King to burn down.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 22:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfn03u$r75$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351913 |
On 2016-04-25 10:58 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-25 10:39 PM, owl wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-25 10:09 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:41 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part >>>>>>>>>>> of the subject under discussion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes or no: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>>>>>>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation >>>>>>>>> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing >>>>>>>>> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Failure to answer the question noted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The answer was a conditional "yes". Failure to read noted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No. Another question, which was not asked was answered "yes". >>>>> >>>>> No. Pay attention: >>>>> >>>>> IF ( The implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what >>>>> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks ) >>>>> >>>>> THEN ( "Yes," I think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory >>>>> hardlinks to do what it does is actually support for the idea >>>>> that "OS X is crap" ) >>>>> >>>> >>>> As I said: it answered a question that was not asked. >>>> >>>> Try again. >>> >>> LOL. They just don't come any slower than you, do they? >>> >>> This was your question: >>> <quote> >>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>> </quote> >>> >>> My answer is a conditional "yes." >>> >>> This is the condition: >>> <quote> >>> if the implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what >>> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks >>> </quote> >>> >> >> It is a strawman you have set up. >> >> If the reason that Linux users are insufferable little pricks is the >> reason that no one wants to use Linux... >> >> ...then the answer to whether Linux sucks is "yes". > > No strawman.. > > Do I think that the fact that you use gasoline in your mop bucket is the > reason you suck as a janitor? > > Yes, if your choice to use gasoline in your mop bucket is what caused the > Burger King to burn down. But yours was to avoid moving the conversation back where it belonged. Yes: a strawman.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 06:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fnaef03.htua@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351914 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-25 10:58 PM, owl wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2016-04-25 10:39 PM, owl wrote: >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> On 2016-04-25 10:09 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:41 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part >>>>>>>>>>>> of the subject under discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes or no: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>>>>>>>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation >>>>>>>>>> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing >>>>>>>>>> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Failure to answer the question noted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The answer was a conditional "yes". Failure to read noted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. Another question, which was not asked was answered "yes". >>>>>> >>>>>> No. Pay attention: >>>>>> >>>>>> IF ( The implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what >>>>>> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks ) >>>>>> >>>>>> THEN ( "Yes," I think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory >>>>>> hardlinks to do what it does is actually support for the idea >>>>>> that "OS X is crap" ) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As I said: it answered a question that was not asked. >>>>> >>>>> Try again. >>>> >>>> LOL. They just don't come any slower than you, do they? >>>> >>>> This was your question: >>>> <quote> >>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>> </quote> >>>> >>>> My answer is a conditional "yes." >>>> >>>> This is the condition: >>>> <quote> >>>> if the implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what >>>> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks >>>> </quote> >>>> >>> >>> It is a strawman you have set up. >>> >>> If the reason that Linux users are insufferable little pricks is the >>> reason that no one wants to use Linux... >>> >>> ...then the answer to whether Linux sucks is "yes". >> >> No strawman.. >> >> Do I think that the fact that you use gasoline in your mop bucket is the >> reason you suck as a janitor? >> >> Yes, if your choice to use gasoline in your mop bucket is what caused the >> Burger King to burn down. > > But yours was to avoid moving the conversation back where it belonged. > > Yes: a strawman. > Nope. I answered the question you posed. If there was a strawman, you built it. And by the way, straw and gasoline don't play well together either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 08:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfo2sq$p26$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351915 |
On 2016-04-25 11:06 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-25 10:58 PM, owl wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-25 10:39 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-04-25 10:09 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:41 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the subject under discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes or no: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>>>>>>>>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation >>>>>>>>>>> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing >>>>>>>>>>> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Failure to answer the question noted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The answer was a conditional "yes". Failure to read noted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. Another question, which was not asked was answered "yes". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. Pay attention: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IF ( The implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what >>>>>>> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks ) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THEN ( "Yes," I think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory >>>>>>> hardlinks to do what it does is actually support for the idea >>>>>>> that "OS X is crap" ) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said: it answered a question that was not asked. >>>>>> >>>>>> Try again. >>>>> >>>>> LOL. They just don't come any slower than you, do they? >>>>> >>>>> This was your question: >>>>> <quote> >>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>>> </quote> >>>>> >>>>> My answer is a conditional "yes." >>>>> >>>>> This is the condition: >>>>> <quote> >>>>> if the implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what >>>>> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks >>>>> </quote> >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is a strawman you have set up. >>>> >>>> If the reason that Linux users are insufferable little pricks is the >>>> reason that no one wants to use Linux... >>>> >>>> ...then the answer to whether Linux sucks is "yes". >>> >>> No strawman.. >>> >>> Do I think that the fact that you use gasoline in your mop bucket is the >>> reason you suck as a janitor? >>> >>> Yes, if your choice to use gasoline in your mop bucket is what caused the >>> Burger King to burn down. >> >> But yours was to avoid moving the conversation back where it belonged. >> >> Yes: a strawman. >> > > Nope. I answered the question you posed. If there was a strawman, > you built it. And by the way, straw and gasoline don't play well > together either. > No. You avoided answering the question I posed. If you had answered it, you would simply have typed a "yes" or a "no". :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 09:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gOudnWBnZ6wlBYLKnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #351964 |
On 2016-04-26, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > No. You avoided answering the question I posed. > If you had answered it, you would simply have typed a "yes" or a "no". No one is going to fall for your bullshit. You don't set the tone. Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No? -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 09:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfo5hh$tqh$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351977 |
On 2016-04-26 9:35 AM, Marek Novotny wrote: > On 2016-04-26, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> No. You avoided answering the question I posed. >> If you had answered it, you would simply have typed a "yes" or a "no". > > No one is going to fall for your bullshit. > You don't set the tone. > > Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No? > I will not answer that question. See what I did there?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <xqGdnYFva7tXBoLKnZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #351978 |
On 2016-04-26, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-26 9:35 AM, Marek Novotny wrote: >> On 2016-04-26, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> No. You avoided answering the question I posed. >>> If you had answered it, you would simply have typed a "yes" or a "no". >> >> No one is going to fall for your bullshit. >> You don't set the tone. >> >> Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No? >> > > I will not answer that question. Failure to answer noted. Poor wife... -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 09:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfo6gi$ve0$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351985 |
On 2016-04-26 9:48 AM, Marek Novotny wrote: > On 2016-04-26, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-26 9:35 AM, Marek Novotny wrote: >>> On 2016-04-26, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> No. You avoided answering the question I posed. >>>> If you had answered it, you would simply have typed a "yes" or a "no". >>> >>> No one is going to fall for your bullshit. >>> You don't set the tone. >>> >>> Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No? >>> >> >> I will not answer that question. > > Failure to answer noted. Poor wife... > No. Did you see me assume an answer to my question? No. Try again, but this time: something for grown-ups. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 09:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <xOidncGd7LMyAILKnZ2dnUU7-TednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #351987 |
On 2016-04-26, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-26 9:48 AM, Marek Novotny wrote: >> On 2016-04-26, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2016-04-26 9:35 AM, Marek Novotny wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-26, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> No. You avoided answering the question I posed. >>>>> If you had answered it, you would simply have typed a "yes" or a "no". >>>> >>>> No one is going to fall for your bullshit. >>>> You don't set the tone. >>>> >>>> Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No? >>>> >>> >>> I will not answer that question. >> >> Failure to answer noted. Poor wife... >> > > No. Did you see me assume an answer to my question? No. > > Try again, but this time: something for grown-ups. Is that what you say to your wife when you slap her around? Yes or no? -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 10:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfo735$s9$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351989 |
On 2016-04-26 9:56 AM, Marek Novotny wrote: > On 2016-04-26, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-26 9:48 AM, Marek Novotny wrote: >>> On 2016-04-26, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-26 9:35 AM, Marek Novotny wrote: >>>>> On 2016-04-26, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> No. You avoided answering the question I posed. >>>>>> If you had answered it, you would simply have typed a "yes" or a "no". >>>>> >>>>> No one is going to fall for your bullshit. >>>>> You don't set the tone. >>>>> >>>>> Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I will not answer that question. >>> >>> Failure to answer noted. Poor wife... >>> >> >> No. Did you see me assume an answer to my question? No. >> >> Try again, but this time: something for grown-ups. > > Is that what you say to your wife when you slap her around? Yes or no? > I will not answer that question. And that wasn't really trying again, was it? Looks like we've found your intellectual limit. I asked an HONEST question: you guys refuse to address it. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 16:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdie903.a4@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351964 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-25 11:06 PM, owl wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2016-04-25 10:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> On 2016-04-25 10:39 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 10:09 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:41 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the subject under discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes or no: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>>>>>>>>>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation >>>>>>>>>>>> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing >>>>>>>>>>>> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Failure to answer the question noted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The answer was a conditional "yes". Failure to read noted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. Another question, which was not asked was answered "yes". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. Pay attention: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IF ( The implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what >>>>>>>> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THEN ( "Yes," I think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory >>>>>>>> hardlinks to do what it does is actually support for the idea >>>>>>>> that "OS X is crap" ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I said: it answered a question that was not asked. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Try again. >>>>>> >>>>>> LOL. They just don't come any slower than you, do they? >>>>>> >>>>>> This was your question: >>>>>> <quote> >>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>>>> </quote> >>>>>> >>>>>> My answer is a conditional "yes." >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the condition: >>>>>> <quote> >>>>>> if the implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what >>>>>> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks >>>>>> </quote> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is a strawman you have set up. >>>>> >>>>> If the reason that Linux users are insufferable little pricks is the >>>>> reason that no one wants to use Linux... >>>>> >>>>> ...then the answer to whether Linux sucks is "yes". >>>> >>>> No strawman.. >>>> >>>> Do I think that the fact that you use gasoline in your mop bucket is the >>>> reason you suck as a janitor? >>>> >>>> Yes, if your choice to use gasoline in your mop bucket is what caused the >>>> Burger King to burn down. >>> >>> But yours was to avoid moving the conversation back where it belonged. >>> >>> Yes: a strawman. >>> >> >> Nope. I answered the question you posed. If there was a strawman, >> you built it. And by the way, straw and gasoline don't play well >> together either. >> > > No. You avoided answering the question I posed. > > If you had answered it, you would simply have typed a "yes" or a "no". > > :-) Nope. Your question was incomplete and required a conditional answer. Using of a gun for home defense does not make you a moron unless your implementation of "using a gun for home defense" means that the gun is stored in a way that rug rats have access to it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 10:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfo7jh$1pa$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351990 |
On 2016-04-26 9:57 AM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-25 11:06 PM, owl wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-25 10:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-04-25 10:39 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 10:09 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:41 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the subject under discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes or no: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation >>>>>>>>>>>>> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing >>>>>>>>>>>>> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Failure to answer the question noted. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The answer was a conditional "yes". Failure to read noted. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No. Another question, which was not asked was answered "yes". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. Pay attention: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IF ( The implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what >>>>>>>>> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks ) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THEN ( "Yes," I think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory >>>>>>>>> hardlinks to do what it does is actually support for the idea >>>>>>>>> that "OS X is crap" ) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I said: it answered a question that was not asked. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Try again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LOL. They just don't come any slower than you, do they? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This was your question: >>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>>>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My answer is a conditional "yes." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is the condition: >>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>> if the implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what >>>>>>> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks >>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a strawman you have set up. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the reason that Linux users are insufferable little pricks is the >>>>>> reason that no one wants to use Linux... >>>>>> >>>>>> ...then the answer to whether Linux sucks is "yes". >>>>> >>>>> No strawman.. >>>>> >>>>> Do I think that the fact that you use gasoline in your mop bucket is the >>>>> reason you suck as a janitor? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, if your choice to use gasoline in your mop bucket is what caused the >>>>> Burger King to burn down. >>>> >>>> But yours was to avoid moving the conversation back where it belonged. >>>> >>>> Yes: a strawman. >>>> >>> >>> Nope. I answered the question you posed. If there was a strawman, >>> you built it. And by the way, straw and gasoline don't play well >>> together either. >>> >> >> No. You avoided answering the question I posed. >> >> If you had answered it, you would simply have typed a "yes" or a "no". >> >> :-) > > Nope. Your question was incomplete and required a conditional answer. > Using of a gun for home defense does not make you a moron unless your > implementation of "using a gun for home defense" means that the gun is > stored in a way that rug rats have access to it. > No. My question was entirely complete. And you've just proved it: Does using a gun for home defense automatically make you a moron? I can answer that question "no". Does using directory hard links for Time Machine automatically make Mac OS X "crap"? Now you! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 05:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dob1j5Frh9eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #351964 |
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:52:58 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > On 2016-04-25 11:06 PM, owl wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2016-04-25 10:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> On 2016-04-25 10:39 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 10:09 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:41 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is part of the subject under discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes or no: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory >>>>>>>>>>>>> hard links to do what it does is actually support for the >>>>>>>>>>>>> idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the >>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is >>>>>>>>>>>> what led to OS X allowing users to create directory >>>>>>>>>>>> hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Failure to answer the question noted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The answer was a conditional "yes". Failure to read noted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. Another question, which was not asked was answered "yes". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. Pay attention: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IF ( The implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks >>>>>>>> is what >>>>>>>> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks >>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THEN ( "Yes," I think that the fact that Time Machine uses >>>>>>>> directory >>>>>>>> hardlinks to do what it does is actually support for >>>>>>>> the idea that "OS X is crap" ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I said: it answered a question that was not asked. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Try again. >>>>>> >>>>>> LOL. They just don't come any slower than you, do they? >>>>>> >>>>>> This was your question: >>>>>> <quote> >>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard >>>>>> links to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX >>>>>> is crap"? >>>>>> </quote> >>>>>> >>>>>> My answer is a conditional "yes." >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the condition: >>>>>> <quote> >>>>>> if the implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is >>>>>> what led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks >>>>>> </quote> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> It is a strawman you have set up. >>>>> >>>>> If the reason that Linux users are insufferable little pricks is the >>>>> reason that no one wants to use Linux... >>>>> >>>>> ...then the answer to whether Linux sucks is "yes". >>>> >>>> No strawman.. >>>> >>>> Do I think that the fact that you use gasoline in your mop bucket is >>>> the reason you suck as a janitor? >>>> >>>> Yes, if your choice to use gasoline in your mop bucket is what caused >>>> the Burger King to burn down. >>> >>> But yours was to avoid moving the conversation back where it belonged. >>> >>> Yes: a strawman. >>> >>> >> Nope. I answered the question you posed. If there was a strawman, >> you built it. And by the way, straw and gasoline don't play well >> together either. >> >> > No. You avoided answering the question I posed. > > If you had answered it, you would simply have typed a "yes" or a "no". > > :-) Logical fallacy, loss of down. Plurium interrogationum / Many questions This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic) answer to a complex question. "Are higher taxes an impediment to business or not? Yes or no?" http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#manyq -- -v "Desktops, workstations and servers are and Microsoft is doing very well. AS well as Linux." -"Slimer"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 00:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfpq6u$spo$4@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #352121 |
On 2016-04-26 10:38 PM, vallor wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:52:58 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > >> On 2016-04-25 11:06 PM, owl wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-25 10:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-04-25 10:39 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 10:09 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:41 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is part of the subject under discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes or no: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard links to do what it does is actually support for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea that "OSX is crap"? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the >>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is >>>>>>>>>>>>> what led to OS X allowing users to create directory >>>>>>>>>>>>> hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Failure to answer the question noted. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The answer was a conditional "yes". Failure to read noted. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No. Another question, which was not asked was answered "yes". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. Pay attention: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IF ( The implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks >>>>>>>>> is what >>>>>>>>> led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks >>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THEN ( "Yes," I think that the fact that Time Machine uses >>>>>>>>> directory >>>>>>>>> hardlinks to do what it does is actually support for >>>>>>>>> the idea that "OS X is crap" ) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I said: it answered a question that was not asked. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Try again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LOL. They just don't come any slower than you, do they? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This was your question: >>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard >>>>>>> links to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX >>>>>>> is crap"? >>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My answer is a conditional "yes." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is the condition: >>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>> if the implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is >>>>>>> what led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks >>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> It is a strawman you have set up. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the reason that Linux users are insufferable little pricks is the >>>>>> reason that no one wants to use Linux... >>>>>> >>>>>> ...then the answer to whether Linux sucks is "yes". >>>>> >>>>> No strawman.. >>>>> >>>>> Do I think that the fact that you use gasoline in your mop bucket is >>>>> the reason you suck as a janitor? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, if your choice to use gasoline in your mop bucket is what caused >>>>> the Burger King to burn down. >>>> >>>> But yours was to avoid moving the conversation back where it belonged. >>>> >>>> Yes: a strawman. >>>> >>>> >>> Nope. I answered the question you posed. If there was a strawman, >>> you built it. And by the way, straw and gasoline don't play well >>> together either. >>> >>> >> No. You avoided answering the question I posed. >> >> If you had answered it, you would simply have typed a "yes" or a "no". >> >> :-) > > Logical fallacy, loss of down. > > Plurium interrogationum / Many questions > > This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic) answer > to a complex question. > > "Are higher taxes an impediment to business or not? Yes or no?" > > http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#manyq > Nope. Sorry, but it is not a fallacy of that type.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 05:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dob10sFot9qU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #351896 |
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 04:13:25 +0000, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >> >>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>> >>>> >>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part of >>> the subject under discussion. >>> >>> >> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >> >> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >> >> Yes or no: >> >> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? > > I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation > of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing > users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." This is what happened. Basically, Apple took a shortcut. Since Time Machine is a product to assure data reliability, this might have been a bit cavalier on their part. Have there been any reports of Time Machine directory hard links causing problems? -- -v "Desktops, workstations and servers are and Microsoft is doing very well. AS well as Linux." -"Slimer"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web