I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
assignments.
We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
desktop alternative to Windows.
We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
98 percent of the market".

Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
Or maybe that was 2003?
How about 2012?

Luna Lane

Luna Lane wrote something like:


> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
> Or maybe that was 2003?
> How about 2012?

Hi. You may be new here or more likely you are a sock puppet. This sort of
troll we see a lot and you need to work on it a bit, but you should still
get a few troll-bait bites. 

Good luck!

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 

Luna Lane wrote:
> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> assignments.
> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
> desktop alternative to Windows.
> We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
> we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
> solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
> 98 percent of the market".
> 
> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
> Or maybe that was 2003?
> How about 2012?
> 
> Luna Lane

I don't know what may be the year of Linux, and I absolutely don't 
matter about that.
But I do know that I'm working with Linux since 1996 and my customers 
are satisfied with it.
Obviously every thing has its place, and I'm just beginning to deploy 
Linux desktops by now, having it yet installed only on servers.
I'm not a Windows opposer (I use only WIndows desktops, and I think that 
WXP is not so bad), but I think that having an alternative is only a 
good thing and that having a monopolist is bad.

Bye.

Roberto

Luna Lane wrote:
> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.

IBM is doing no such thing... they, among many other companies, are 
_funding_ current Linux kernel development, but they are not nor do they 
have plans to rewrite the current kernel.

I don't really have any info to back this up, but I'd say the onus of 
proof is on the prof. Or perhaps you just heard him wrong.

--beefalo

On 28 Jun 2005 16:15:09 -0700, spinny_whop@yahoo.com (Luna Lane) Gave
us:

>I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
>topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
>one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
>assignments.
>We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
>of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
>what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
>unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
>In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
>in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
>idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
>My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
>except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
>us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
>desktop alternative to Windows.
>We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
>we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
>solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
>My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
>98 percent of the market".
>
>Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
>Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
>Or maybe that was 2003?
>How about 2012?
>
>Luna Lane

  Considering that IBM is embracing LINUX, not UNIX, I'd say that they
(IBM) are on the Linux bandwagon.

  Considering that LINUX is being used in more and more military
scenarios, up to and including RTOS iterations, I'd say that your prof
is a MAC retard that has a pair of blinders on.

  Considering that LINUX is free, and windows has a hugh attached
cost, I'd say that there is no "market" comparison.

  Considering that OSX is ALSO a variant of UNIX that leans more
toward Linux (BSD) than Unix, I'd say that he needs to look in a
mirror.

 Considering that even Novell has a Linux based server, and desktop
implementation, I'd say that even the "big boys" are on the bandwagon.

  Oh yeah...  heard about that new federal security IP package that is
now in Linux.  Yep... can't beat it!

  Fragmented indeed.  Get real.

  Hell...  that Prof doesn't have blinders on, he is wearing a
blindfold!

 You got that right.  Linux ain't Unix... at all...  But it IS the
next big contender.  You can take that and most any Linux "big player"
stock to the bank.

Sacco wrote:
> 
> I don't know what may be the year of Linux, and I absolutely don't 
> matter about that.
> But I do know that I'm working with Linux since 1996 and my customers 
> are satisfied with it.
> Obviously every thing has its place, and I'm just beginning to deploy 
> Linux desktops by now, having it yet installed only on servers.

Punctually, I use Linux only on servers at my customers' sites, but at 
home I mostly use Linux as desktop (as by now).

> I'm not a Windows opposer (I use only WIndows desktops, and I think that 
> WXP is not so bad), but I think that having an alternative is only a 
> good thing and that having a monopolist is bad.
> 
> Bye.
> 
> Roberto

spinny_whop@yahoo.com (Luna Lane) writes:

>I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
>topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
>one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
>assignments.
>We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
>of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is

What is fragmented? All distros use the Linux kernel. All distros use the
gnu tools. Those are the "operating system", the rest is applications. 
He is objecting because some include OpenOffice and others do not?


>what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
>unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.

??? What is he talking about. All of the distros are available in
shrinkwrap. 

>In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is

Who cares what it is called. No it is not Unix. Neither is the Mac. Neither
is Windows. ....

>in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
>idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.

Fine. It will have to be open source.  Love to have them onboard.


>My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
>except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
>us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
>desktop alternative to Windows.

Sorry, Sun machines are growing on the vine as a desktop alternative to
Windows?  Or Macs?

>We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
>we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
>solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.

The price of a Mac is not due to the price of the hardware. 

>My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
>98 percent of the market".

So why is he using Macs? Macs cost money and still only have less than 1%
or the market. 

It sounds like either he is trying to incite discussion and argument from
the class by taking an extreme position or is someone who is incapable of
thinking through an argument. 


>Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
>Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
>Or maybe that was 2003?
>How about 2012?

What is the "year of Linux"?
Is that like the "year of Physics"?

Luna Lane wrote:
> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
> 98 percent of the market".

Your professor goes around saying that, right?

And this was the Community College of what town?   Moronia, Illinios?

Luna Lane wrote:

> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> assignments.
> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says

  He's a biased idiot like everyone. He may be a "prof", but it doesn't always
make him "right".

Luna Lane wrote:

> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.

Maybe you should make up your own mind. He might well be right. However,
maybe your professor should stop whining and start contributing. And FWIW,
you yourself should investigate into the qualities of Linux and base your
ideas on that. I think his opinion is a bit extreme and - which is worse -
onesided. As a counterargument, Linux is used, Linux runs on a lot of
platforms, Linux is free, Linux supports a lot of hardware and - last but
not least - Linux has a large community of developers and users that are
perfectly willing to support you if you have trouble. Now go and see what
your professor has to say about that.

-- 
Ruurd
..o.
...o
ooo

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
On 28 Jun 2005 16:15:09 -0700, Luna Lane 
  <spinny_whop@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.

Total lack of shrinkwrap?  WTF does that mean?

"Luna Lane" <spinny_whop@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:9204a577.0506281515.282c1960@posting.google.com...
>I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> assignments.
> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
> desktop alternative to Windows.
> We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
> we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
> solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
> 98 percent of the market".
>
> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
> Or maybe that was 2003?
> How about 2012?
>
> Luna Lane

        A classic example of why I don't hire professors.  Biased,
    opinionated, live outside of the real world, and refuse
    to acknowledge the obvious.

        Hire BS or an MS, get the job done. Hire a PhD, and spend
    years fooling around with lofty, and misguided studies
    and investigations, generally based on wrong assumptions
    with little ability to learn or grow. Not one single PhD has
    ever made it through the interview process.  Simply
    state a simple programming problem and send them to
    the whiteboard to write the code to solve it. Then
    sit back and watch them flounder about.  It's been years
    since they did any real production work and without
    an undergrad, they are helpless.

Enjoy
Postmaster.

Luna Lane wrote:
> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
> 98 percent of the market".

This professor of yours sounds like a very insightful and deep-thinking 
guy, who has obviously studied, in-depth, the entire Operating System 
universe.  I would carefully listen to everything he says, and follow 
his advice unquestioningly.

Jeff



:)

Luna Lane wrote:

> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> assignments.
> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
> desktop alternative to Windows.
> We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
> we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
> solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
> 98 percent of the market".
> 
> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?

It is.

> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?

It was as well. 

> Or maybe that was 2003?

Yes. 

> How about 2012?

Then to. 

> 
> Luna Lane

Well, Miss Moon, you know what they say" "those that can, do. Those that
can't, teach". Looks like your teacher is yet more proof that those that
can't hack it in the real world because they are too stupid and can't deal
with technical realities end up teaching. 

On 28 Jun 2005 16:15:09 -0700, spinny_whop@yahoo.com (Luna Lane) wrote
in message <<9204a577.0506281515.282c1960@posting.google.com>>:

> I am a 2nd year CS xover student

You must have xovered from Ichthyological Science.

jeff wrote:

> Luna Lane wrote:
>> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
>> 98 percent of the market".
> 
> This professor of yours sounds like a very insightful and deep-thinking
> guy, who has obviously studied, in-depth, the entire Operating System
> universe.  I would carefully listen to everything he says, and follow
> his advice unquestioningly.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> :)

Ouch, she would get what she deserves that way, that is for sure!

"Bill Marcum" <bmarcum@iglou.com.urgent> wrote in message 
news:85a9p2-jah.ln1@don.localnet...
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
> On 28 Jun 2005 16:15:09 -0700, Luna Lane
>  <spinny_whop@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
>> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
>> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
>> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
>
> Total lack of shrinkwrap?  WTF does that mean?


If the "professor" is teaching about the total lack of shrinkwrap then I 
think she should ask for a refund on her tuition.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:15:09 -0700, Luna Lane wrote:
<snip>


Hey Flatfish. When are you going to explain those claims about Totem you
made? You know, the ones about it crashing while burning coasters even
though it has no CD burning capability...

Ku Karlovsky wrote something like:

> On 28 Jun 2005 16:15:09 -0700, spinny_whop@yahoo.com (Luna Lane) wrote
> in message <<9204a577.0506281515.282c1960@posting.google.com>>:
> 
>> I am a 2nd year CS xover student
> 
> You must have xovered from Ichthyological Science.

I needed a laugh. Why else come to cola if not for classics like this :)

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 

After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, beefalo <beefalo@noware.org> belched out:
> Luna Lane wrote:
>> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
>> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
>> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
>
> IBM is doing no such thing... they, among many other companies, are
> _funding_ current Linux kernel development, but they are not nor do
> they have plans to rewrite the current kernel.
>
> I don't really have any info to back this up, but I'd say the onus
> of proof is on the prof. Or perhaps you just heard him wrong.

Actually, there's an IBM project that could potentially be interpreted
that way...

<http://www.research.ibm.com/K42/>

K42 aka Tornado (a joint IBM/University of Toronto project) is a
"Linux-compatible" system with a microkernel-based design, running on
several 64 bit platforms.  (MIPS, PPC, x86-64)

Mind you, this is a research project, and IBM historically has had
plenty of research projects that didn't necessarily turn into
commercial products.

It's thus kind of like discovering that the US military has some plan
documenting how to invade, say, Iran.  This doesn't prove they
actually plan to do so; they have planning groups (thereby explaining
why the Pentagon is the world's largest office building ;-)) that
employ themselves by continually making up plans for all sorts of
contingencies.
-- 
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://linuxfinances.info/info/oses.html
Why isn't phonetic spelled the way it sounds?

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> spinny_whop@yahoo.com (Luna Lane) writes:
>
>>I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
>>topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
>>one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
>>assignments.
>>We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
>>of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
>
> What is fragmented? All distros use the Linux kernel. All distros use the
> gnu tools. Those are the "operating system", the rest is applications. 
> He is objecting because some include OpenOffice and others do not?

Sure, they're fragmented.

While they "dip into many of the same streams," each, by virtue of
being distinct, has ways in which it does NOT dip into the same
streams.

Generally speaking, each distribution has its own customizations to
its install system, to its package management system, and, most
importantly, each distribution separately manages its own patches to
integrate packages into the respective systems.

It is useful to contrast this with, say, FreeBSD, where the
combination of CORE + Ports is fairly much a single CVS archive.

>>what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
>>unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
>
> ??? What is he talking about. All of the distros are available in
> shrinkwrap. 

Nonsense.  Plenty aren't.

And shrinkwrap is *way* less available than it was back in about
2000/2001 when you could commonly find some combination of Red Hat,
SuSE, Mandrake, Linux, and Caldera on store shelves.

>>My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
>>except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
>>us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
>>desktop alternative to Windows.
>
> Sorry, Sun machines are growing on the vine as a desktop alternative to
> Windows?  Or Macs?

It's the usual "Linux isn't there yet" for some desktop purposes
(which *is* true) being projected into "Oh, it has totally FAILED!!!"

That's got to be a tad depressing for people working on "desktop"
projects.

On the other hand, for many, many of us, the *point* of using Linux is
that we find utility in it.  The fact that it is useful (including for
some 'desktop-like' purposes) gives us good success, irrespective of
someone crying 'failure.'

>>We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
>>we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
>>solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
>
> The price of a Mac is not due to the price of the hardware. 

Indeed.  Macs running Intel chips won't likely be cheaper [as Chris
ducks and ignores the notion of there being some objective metric here
;-)].

Macs will still maintain a significant price premium because Apple can
successfully demand premium prices.

From what I can tell, the reason for the Intel "leap" is actually on
the laptop side of things.  Apple has had a hard time getting
low-powered PPC chips; Intel has done a better job than IBM/Motorola
in building power-economic chips that allow battery life to thrive.

That leads to being able to buy faster, more powerful iBook and
PowerBook laptops that will still command their traditional premium
prices...

>>My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
>>98 percent of the market".
>
> So why is he using Macs? Macs cost money and still only have less
> than 1% or the market.

And when something isn't sold, economic measures that require *sales*
in order for there to be anything for them to detect simply can't
work.

>>Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
>>Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
>>Or maybe that was 2003?
>>How about 2012?
>
> What is the "year of Linux"?
> Is that like the "year of Physics"?

One of the vital reasons for Linux's popularity (and the reason why it
buried Mark Williams' "Coherent" some years ago) is the fact that
Linux licenses come at no cost.  (When you buy RHAS/RHES/SuSE
licenses, you're buying the service contracts...)  Which makes
measuring its "economic significance" more than just a little
troublesome.
-- 
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'gmail.com';
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/
Necessity  is the  mother  of  invention. Insanity  is  the mother  of
straitjackets.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:15:09 -0700, Luna Lane wrote:

> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> assignments.
> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
> desktop alternative to Windows.
> We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
> we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
> solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
> 98 percent of the market".
> 
> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
> Or maybe that was 2003?
> How about 2012?
> 
> Luna Lane

About four years ago I ported several thousand lines of code from DEC
Tru64 Unix to Linux (RedHat 7.x) as we replaced our aging DEC Alphas with
DELL dual Xeons. The port was trivial, and the system was MUCH faster.
Linux may be a poor hack of Unix, but it works quite well as a Unix
replacement. Unix ain't gonna replace Linux, because it does not have the
apps.

According to what I've read, you're going to be waiting a LONG time for
MAC on cheap hardware. Several articles have pointed out that MAC will be
using proprietary cpu's from Intel - not your typical x86 version, so I'm
afraid you're out of luck.

BTW - I've been running linux only on our three computer home network for
a couple of years - it was a bit dicey weaning my wife off WinXX, but it
is certainly a lot more solid now. I've also installed Mandrake 10.1 on
the public access internet computers at the local library, and everyone's
happy. We did a customer satisfaction survey recently, and there were NO
complaints. The answers indicated that a lot of patrons were not even
aware that they were not running MS.

Christopher Browne wrote something like:

> After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, beefalo <beefalo@noware.org>
> belched out:
>> Luna Lane wrote:
>>> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
>>> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
>>> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
>>
>> IBM is doing no such thing... they, among many other companies, are
>> _funding_ current Linux kernel development, but they are not nor do
>> they have plans to rewrite the current kernel.
>>
>> I don't really have any info to back this up, but I'd say the onus
>> of proof is on the prof. Or perhaps you just heard him wrong.
> 
> Actually, there's an IBM project that could potentially be interpreted
> that way...
> 
> <http://www.research.ibm.com/K42/>


Actually the beauty of OSS and where linux has brought us is that at any
time someone can come up with something better and everything will just
port across. We could all be running the new fredix overnight. 

Tho the kernel is not an easy thing to build apparently. Just ask the HURD
guys...

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 

Luna Lane wrote:
> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> assignments.
> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.

Professor to professor... you're professor is wrong... or at least
misguided, possibly just close minded.

There are some who get caught up in the money-side (believe it or
not) of teaching and the market^h^h^h^h^h^hresearch dollars
they get from people like... for example... Sun Microsystems.
Perhaps your prof is 0wn3d.

Sincerly,
Chris
Professor, teaching Linux of all things...

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 03:24:10 +0000, Christopher Browne wrote:

> It is useful to contrast this with, say, FreeBSD, where the
> combination of CORE + Ports is fairly much a single CVS archive.


But not when you compare it to BSDs in general....or even if you add in
operating systems that incorporate parts of a BSD into their structure.

And then if you take all of Unix (which FreeBSD is) as a whole....


There are lots of different types of Linux, just as there are lots of
different types of Unix. 

Bill Marcum wrote:

>> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
>> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
>> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
>> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
> 
> Total lack of shrinkwrap?  WTF does that mean?

My SuSE 9.3 Professional came in a shrink-wrapped box, so it clearly doesn't
mean the obvious. Maybe in this 'professor's' universe it means something
entirely different.

Dave

-- 
Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge
West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9BS
http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~djg39/ [Dave's University home page]
http://www.food-in-due-season.info/ [Dave's book, published May 2005]

begin  KillFileMe.vbs

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 at 02:05 GMT, quoth Ku Karlovsky <nospam@nospam.nospam.not>:
> On 28 Jun 2005 16:15:09 -0700, spinny_whop@yahoo.com (Luna Lane) wrote
> in message <<9204a577.0506281515.282c1960@posting.google.com>>:
> 
>> I am a 2nd year CS xover student
> 
> You must have xovered from Ichthyological Science.

I think Flatso miswrote. That should have been 'xdresser' since s/h/it
often pretends to be human.

-- 
Randex: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 06:10:36 GMT, David Goode <djg39@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
| Bill Marcum wrote:
|
|>> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
|>> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
|>> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
|>> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
|> 
|> Total lack of shrinkwrap?  WTF does that mean?
|
| My SuSE 9.3 Professional came in a shrink-wrapped box, so it clearly doesn't
| mean the obvious. Maybe in this 'professor's' universe it means something
| entirely different.


Probably refering to a lack of 3rd party commercial (proprietry?) software
for Linux. You know, the stuff you buy in shops, in shrinkwrap boxes.
Things like games, etc.


-- 
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC.    http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
     Asking for technical help in newsgroups?  Read this first:
        http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

Bill Marcum wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
> On 28 Jun 2005 16:15:09 -0700, Luna Lane 
>   <spinny_whop@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
>>of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
>>what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
>>unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
> 
> 
> Total lack of shrinkwrap?  WTF does that mean?

Wrapped Packaging for sale ???

begin  virus.txt.scr Luna Lane (flatfish) nymshifted:

< snip flatfish droppings >

Why do you lying asshole insist on including non-advocacy groups?

Keep to lying, trolling and stealing software. And telling racist lies,
naturally. Thats all you are really good at

You recently posted as
 
Aftab Singh, allison_hunt1969, Anna Banger, anonymous, Archie Watermann,
Baba Booey, Babu Singh, bill.gates.loves.me, bison, Bjarne Jensen,
BklynBoy, Boyce Mabri, Buster, Charles LeGrand, Charlie, Choppers McGee,
Christine Abernathy, Claire Lynn, Collie Entragion, Connie Hines, dbx_boy,
Deadpenguin, Elliot Zimmermann, Fawn Lebowitz, flatfish+++, foamy, Gary
Stewart, George Littlefield, Gilbert Hochaim, gilligan, Greg Finnigan, Greg
Laplante, Hans Kimm, Heather, Heather69, hepcat, Ishmeal Hafizi, itchy
balls, Ivan Mctavish, IvanaB, Jeff Szarka, juke_joint, kaptain kaput,
kathy_krantz, Les Turner, Lilly, Lindy, Lisa Shavas, long_tong_ling, Lukumi
Babalu Aye, Major Mynor, McSwain, Moses, narrows_whitefish@yahoo.com,
nate_mcspook, okto_pussy, Paddy  McCrockett, Patricia, Peter Gluckman,
Phillip Cornwall, phoung quoak, pickle_pete, Poopy Pants McGee, Quimby,
Richie O'Toole, Robert Strunk, rothstein_ivan, Sammy, Saul Goldblatt,
Schlomo Smykowski, Sharon Hubbasland, Sean, Sean Fitzhenry, Sean
Macpherson, Sewer Rat, sewer_clown, Spammy_Davis, spanny_davis, Stephan
Simonsen, Stephen, Stephen Townshend, SuckyB, SunnyB, Susan Wong, Suzie
Wong, Swampee, The Beaver, Thorsten, Toby Rastus Roosovelt III, Tori, Tori
Wassermann, Tracee, trailerpark, Trina Swallows, Walter Bubniak, Wang
Mycock, Whizzer, Wilbur J, Willy Wong, Winnie Septos,Wobbles and zyklon_C.  
Plus many, many, many more.
-- 
What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog,
we can assume it will be pretty bad.    --- Dave Barry

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:29:44 -0400, Bill Marcum
<bmarcum@iglou.com.urgent> Gave us:

> My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
>> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
>> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
>
>Total lack of shrinkwrap?  WTF does that mean?


  It's a pushbutton world, full of pushbutton mindsets.

  The Mac has how many keys on their mouse?

  Ever seen a "strategic commander" in action?

  He is one.  Obviously he (or she) isn't aware of the fact that
installing whatever "shrink wrapped" OS he does think is out there,
the job of operating a corporation "with it" is far from done and not
shrink wrapped in any way.


  "What do you mean it doesn't just work?!!!"

  Bwuahahahaha...  Could these guys have even survived at all in the
seventies? Eighties?  Hell, even the Nineties? Why are companies
paying you twits 60k- 120k plus a year?  You ain't worth it, even the
best of you!

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:28:44 +0100, amosf <amosf@bcs4me.com> wrote:

> Luna Lane wrote something like:
>
>
>> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
>> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
>> Or maybe that was 2003?
>> How about 2012?
>
> Hi. You may be new here or more likely you are a sock puppet. This sort  
> of
> troll we see a lot and you need to work on it a bit, but you should still
> get a few troll-bait bites.
>
>
>
Guys, why give the troll the satisfaction of replying to their post.
Just ignore him/her & maybe they'll get fedup wasting their own time.
There is nothing worse for a troll, is to be ignored !!!
FWIW I have used about 8 versions of Linux and been using Suse
since Suse 8. Now on Suse 9.3,which I found really good.
Can now use my laptop with wifi,which I couldn't do in previous
ones. Small problem with Kmail, but can use it logging as root.

scotbitz


-- 

begin  virus.txt.scr scotbitz wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:28:44 +0100, amosf <amosf@bcs4me.com> wrote:
> 
>> Luna Lane wrote something like:
>>
>>
>>> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
>>> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
>>> Or maybe that was 2003?
>>> How about 2012?
>>
>> Hi. You may be new here or more likely you are a sock puppet. This sort
>> of
>> troll we see a lot and you need to work on it a bit, but you should still
>> get a few troll-bait bites.
>>
>>
>>
> Guys, why give the troll the satisfaction of replying to their post.
> Just ignore him/her & maybe they'll get fedup wasting their own time.

Are you kidding? Flatfish giving up trolling?

> There is nothing worse for a troll, is to be ignored !!!

Oh, flatfish will just happily invent new soccks to talk to

He recently posted as

Aftab Singh, allison_hunt1969, Anna Banger, anonymous, Archie Watermann,
Baba Booey, Babu Singh, bill.gates.loves.me, bison, Bjarne Jensen,
BklynBoy, Boyce Mabri, Buster, Charles LeGrand, Charlie, Choppers McGee,
Christine Abernathy, Claire Lynn, Collie Entragion, Connie Hines, dbx_boy,
Deadpenguin, Elliot Zimmermann, Fawn Lebowitz, flatfish+++, foamy, Gary
Stewart, George Littlefield, Gilbert Hochaim, gilligan, Greg Finnigan, Greg
Laplante, Hans Kimm, Heather, Heather69, hepcat, Ishmeal Hafizi, itchy
balls, Ivan Mctavish, IvanaB, Jeff Szarka, juke_joint, kaptain kaput,
kathy_krantz, Les Turner, Lilly, Lindy, Lisa Shavas, long_tong_ling, Lukumi
Babalu Aye, Luna Lane, Major Mynor, McSwain, Moses,
narrows_whitefish@yahoo.com, nate_mcspook, okto_pussy, Paddy  McCrockett,
Patricia, Peter Gluckman, Phillip Cornwall, phoung quoak, pickle_pete,
Poopy Pants McGee, Quimby, Richie O'Toole, Robert Strunk, rothstein_ivan,
Sammy, Saul Goldblatt, Schlomo Smykowski, Sharon Hubbasland, Sean, Sean
Fitzhenry, Sean Macpherson, Sewer Rat, sewer_clown, Spammy_Davis,
spanny_davis, Stephan Simonsen, Stephen, Stephen Townshend, SuckyB, SunnyB,
Susan Wong, Suzie Wong, Swampee, The Beaver, Thorsten, Toby Rastus
Roosovelt III, Tori, Tori Wassermann, Tracee, trailerpark, Trina Swallows,
Walter Bubniak, Wang Mycock, Whizzer, Wilbur J, Willy Wong, Winnie
Septos,Wobbles and zyklon_C.  
Plus many, many, many more.
-- 
Like being presumed a thief and a liar before using a product?
If so, use M$ XP

Bill Marcum wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
> On 28 Jun 2005 16:15:09 -0700, Luna Lane 
>   <spinny_whop@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
>>of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
>>what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
>>unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
> 
> 
> Total lack of shrinkwrap?  WTF does that mean?
Paid-for applications . . .

Christopher Browne wrote:

> It's thus kind of like discovering that the US military has some plan
> documenting how to invade, say, Iran.  This doesn't prove they
> actually plan to do so

I guess you   didn't hear the results of the recent "election" over
there.  ;-)

Ralph wrote:

> Luna Lane wrote:
> 
>> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
>> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
>> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
>> assignments.
>> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
>> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
>> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
>> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
>> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
>> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
>> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
>> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
>> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
>> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
>> desktop alternative to Windows.
>> We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
>> we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
>> solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
>> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
>> 98 percent of the market".
>> 
>> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
> 
> It is.
> 
>> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
> 
> It was as well.
> 
>> Or maybe that was 2003?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> How about 2012?
> 
> Then to.
> 
>> 
>> Luna Lane
> 
> Well, Miss Moon, you know what they say" "those that can, do. Those that
> can't, teach". Looks like your teacher is yet more proof that those that
> can't hack it in the real world because they are too stupid and can't deal
> with technical realities end up teaching.


BINGO!!!

:)


-- 
Giving up on yourself is a CRIME
And it carries a LIFE SENTENCE!

Ralph wrote:

> Luna Lane wrote:
> 
>> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
>> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
>> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
>> assignments.
>> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
>> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
>> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
>> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
>> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
>> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
>> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
>> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
>> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
>> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
>> desktop alternative to Windows.
>> We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
>> we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
>> solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
>> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
>> 98 percent of the market".
>> 
>> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
> 
> It is.
> 
>> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
> 
> It was as well.
> 
>> Or maybe that was 2003?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> How about 2012?
> 
> Then to.
> 
>> 
>> Luna Lane
> 
> Well, Miss Moon, you know what they say" "those that can, do. Those that
> can't, teach". Looks like your teacher is yet more proof that those that
> can't hack it in the real world because they are too stupid and can't deal
> with technical realities end up teaching.



B I N G O ! !


-- 
Giving up on yourself is a CRIME
And it carries a LIFE SENTENCE!

TokaMundo wrote:
>   Considering that OSX is ALSO a variant of UNIX that leans more
> toward Linux (BSD) than Unix, I'd say that he needs to look in a
> mirror.

Ah... I agreed with you right up until the BSD comparison. OS X is based 
on BSD, yes, but BSD != Linux. Two completely different kernels.

--beefalo

Unruh wrote:

>>We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
>>we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
>>solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
> 
> The price of a Mac is not due to the price of the hardware.
> 

Yeah, buying a Mac you pay for a lot of advertising and the oh so nice
lifestyle you fell for. Ever noticed that in the movies, at least from what
I've seen, 9 out of 10 Computers (mostly laptops of course) are Mac?

Flatfish (Luna Lane) wrote:

>(snip troll)

*plonk*

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:11:05 GMT, beefalo <beefalo@noware.org> Gave
us:

>TokaMundo wrote:
>>   Considering that OSX is ALSO a variant of UNIX that leans more
>> toward Linux (BSD) than Unix, I'd say that he needs to look in a
>> mirror.
>
>Ah... I agreed with you right up until the BSD comparison. OS X is based 
>on BSD, yes, but BSD != Linux. Two completely different kernels.
>

  I'll bet my ping times are better!

 9.3 cut my ping times in online gaming in half!

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:23:47 +0200, Mosimann Marius
<der_ft._ike@gmx.net> Gave us:

>
>Yeah, buying a Mac you pay for a lot of advertising and the oh so nice
>lifestyle you fell for. Ever noticed that in the movies, at least from what
>I've seen, 9 out of 10 Computers (mostly laptops of course) are Mac?

  That's only because at that time, the Mac laps were the only ones
that had the right surface treatment (appearance) on the screen.

 Only in the last year or so have PC laps included the clear cover
over the lcd panel, and gone wide form factor.

  As far as capability is concerned, the PC can play a video as well.

  That is all that was taking place in Mission Impossible.  It was not
live comms.

Luna Lane wrote:
> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
> desktop alternative to Windows.


WTF does you teacher think a MAC is running on? Windoze? No, it's Linux 
(MacOSX).. think again mate!

James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>
>> It's thus kind of like discovering that the US military has some plan
>> documenting how to invade, say, Iran.  This doesn't prove they
>> actually plan to do so
>
> I guess you   didn't hear the results of the recent "election" over
> there.  ;-)

They also probably have plans for invading...
 - North Korea (a sensitive one, admittedly)
 - Any number of African countries
 - Any number of countries in the Middle East

It was revealed that there was once a plan on how they'd invade
Canada, not that this was ever a likely event.

The existence of all sorts of "contingency plans" merely means that
there are a lot of generals around the Pentagon that haven't got
better things to do than write up contingency plans.  Some might
actually get used, but a whole lot of the plans will never see the
light of day because they're all about contingencies...
-- 
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "gmail.com")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/
"A lot  of people come to  this newsgroup and  do nothing but complain
about Lisp.   I think maybe they  are such heavy complainers that they
think they read comp.lain.lisp." -- Erik Naggum

In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, Patrick Grimbergen <patrick@grimweb.info> transmitted:
> Luna Lane wrote:
>> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
>> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
>> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
>> desktop alternative to Windows.
>
> WTF does you teacher think a MAC is running on? Windoze? No, it's
> Linux (MacOSX).. think again mate!

No, Mac OS-X is *not* a version of Linux.

It is (somewhat distantly) like FreeBSD, albeit with some Mach thrown
in.

There may be some software included with Mac OS-X that is also
commonly included with Linux, but that doesn't mean it includes Linux.
-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://linuxfinances.info/info/postgresql.html
"Microsoft  OS's  are good because  they   encourage Intel  to produce
faster CPUs for the rest of us to run Unix on." -- George Dau

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:14:18 +0000, TokaMundo wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:23:47 +0200, Mosimann Marius <der_ft._ike@gmx.net>
> Gave us:
> 
> 
>>Yeah, buying a Mac you pay for a lot of advertising and the oh so nice
>>lifestyle you fell for. Ever noticed that in the movies, at least from
>>what I've seen, 9 out of 10 Computers (mostly laptops of course) are Mac?
> 
>   That's only because at that time, the Mac laps were the only ones
> that had the right surface treatment (appearance) on the screen.
> 
>  Only in the last year or so have PC laps included the clear cover
> over the lcd panel, and gone wide form factor.
> 
>   As far as capability is concerned, the PC can play a video as well.
> 
>   That is all that was taking place in Mission Impossible.  It was not
> live comms.

I have a hard time believing that's the reason. It's really trivial to
edit the movie in such a way as to make anything you want appear on the
screen.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:53:19 GMT, Christopher Browne assert()ed:
> James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>> Christopher Browne wrote:
>>
>>> It's thus kind of like discovering that the US military has some plan
>>> documenting how to invade, say, Iran.  This doesn't prove they
>>> actually plan to do so
>>
>> I guess you   didn't hear the results of the recent "election" over
>> there.  ;-)
>
> They also probably have plans for invading...
>  - North Korea (a sensitive one, admittedly)
>  - Any number of African countries
>  - Any number of countries in the Middle East
>
> It was revealed that there was once a plan on how they'd invade
> Canada, not that this was ever a likely event.

They once did invade Canada but we kicked their asses.

-- 
Linux 2.4.22-1.2199.4.legacy.nptl athlon GNU/Linux
 09:35:01  up 27 days, 13:12,  5 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.07, 0.07

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:15:09 -0700, Luna Lane wrote:

> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> assignments.
> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
> desktop alternative to Windows.
> We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
> we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
> solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
> 98 percent of the market".
> 
> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
> Or maybe that was 2003?
> How about 2012?
> 
> Luna Lane

My first reaction is that your prof has been isolated from the real world.

In comp.os.linux.misc ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:15:09 -0700, Luna Lane wrote:
> 
>> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
>> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and

> My first reaction is that your prof has been isolated from the real world.

My first reaction is that he is a troll and you are a sucker.

(newsgroups NOT trimmed - please do it yourself; kill advocacy groups
now!)

Peter

"Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:15:09 -0700, Luna Lane wrote:
>>
>>> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
>>> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
>
>> My first reaction is that your prof has been isolated from the real world.
>
>My first reaction is that he is a troll and you are a sucker.

My initial reaction was thinking it was a pretty lame troll; but I
was wrong.  Look at the long list of suckers who respond just as if
this "prof" is real!

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

begin  In <9204a577.0506281515.282c1960@posting.google.com>, on
06/28/2005
   at 04:15 PM, spinny_whop@yahoo.com (Luna Lane) said:

>I am a 2nd year CS

Sure you are.

>My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is what is
>holding it back along with a bad reputation for user unfriendliness
>and a total lack of shrinkwrap.

Sure he does. He might exist and have been badly misinformed, but the
smart money says that you are lying.

>In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM
>is in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with
>the idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.

Yeah, right, IBM can't afford the lawyers to warn them away from such
an action. 

>but he warned us against using an operating system that is dying on 
>the vine as a desktop alternative to Windows.

Yeah, right, and he got his data where? Redmond?

>My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still
>has 98 percent of the market".

Would that be professor gates?

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Christopher Browne wrote:
> After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, beefalo <beefalo@noware.org> belched out:
> 
>>Luna Lane wrote:
>>
>>>In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
>>>in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
>>>idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
>>
>>IBM is doing no such thing... they, among many other companies, are
>>_funding_ current Linux kernel development, but they are not nor do
>>they have plans to rewrite the current kernel.
>>
>>I don't really have any info to back this up, but I'd say the onus
>>of proof is on the prof. Or perhaps you just heard him wrong.
> 
> 
> Actually, there's an IBM project that could potentially be interpreted
> that way...
> 
> <http://www.research.ibm.com/K42/>
> 
> K42 aka Tornado (a joint IBM/University of Toronto project) is a
> "Linux-compatible" system with a microkernel-based design, running on
> several 64 bit platforms.  (MIPS, PPC, x86-64)
> 
> Mind you, this is a research project, and IBM historically has had
> plenty of research projects that didn't necessarily turn into
> commercial products.
> 
> It's thus kind of like discovering that the US military has some plan
> documenting how to invade, say, Iran.  This doesn't prove they
> actually plan to do so; they have planning groups (thereby explaining
> why the Pentagon is the world's largest office building ;-)) that
> employ themselves by continually making up plans for all sorts of
> contingencies.

I stand corrected. Though OP, or the prof, must have misunderstood 
something, because this is talking about a new microkernel... Linux _is_ 
the kernel in Linux. Can't really market "their own version of Linux" 
without the Linux kernel, now can they? ;)

And if it's anything like some of the other microkernels I know, it 
could be a long time coming.

I sorta think OP was a troll anyway. Or at least, it woulda been a good 
one. I came back to my desk to see 50 freakin' posts about "My professor 
says linux sucks", all responded to by rabid, fervent Linux zealots 
tearing the poor professor to shreds.

Oh, MS would _kill_ to inspire brand loyalty like this.

--beefalo

beefalo wrote:
> I sorta think OP was a troll anyway.

I also sorta think I was the last one to clue in on that fact. :)

--beefalo

Luna Lane wrote:

> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> assignments.

well, Solaris does have some open source tools available. 

> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.

well, thats his opinion. mind you, the only fragmentation is the 30,000+
development projects, and even then, thats not very fragmented. linux
(especially the kernel project) is very united when it comes to proper
support for devices. as for user unfriendlyness, are e talking unfriendly
users or the OS not being "point and click" playable?

> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.

oh really? Linux Torvalds still has the final say on how the linux kernel
works. even IBM can't change that. Also, if linux is such a poor hack, then
why are almost all of the original tools for UNIX supported and/or ported
to linux? if he's so hot about Unix, perhaps he should try the other "poor
hack" called BSD (and its not even a hack, its an actual UNIX-like OS like
linux, only more streamlined)

> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
> desktop alternative to Windows.

and he expects us to use an OS that has enough security holes to drive the
entire US military forces through? no thanks. as for MAC, well, since they
allied themselves with Intel, look for OSX to die on the vine in the next
3-5 years as they port everything over to the intel-based arch.

linux will still be around (it has support for Intel, AMD, DEC-Alpha, ppc,
68k and others). how many OS'es do you know that can support almost every
chipset out there? so far, I can think of 3 (and windows isn't one of them)

> We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
> we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
> solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.

well, its solid now on the ppc. porting to Intel is going to mean growing
pains and lots of debugging for years.

> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
> 98 percent of the market".

They do? I thought is was more like 68% of the DESKTOP market. UNIX/Linux
and others still have a commanding control of the server market (where
windows has less than 20% share)

if you want real UNIX, pay AT&T their license fees for an outdated OS that
can't meet the needs of modern hardware, or pay $49.00 for a good copy of
BSD or choose just about any flavor of linux you want. if you want windows,
well, its $295 for the XP home, $495 for XP Pro of $800 for server 2003
with 5 user license (and even then, you don't own it, you are only leasing
it from M$).

I am a linux user and administrator. I find it far easier to use than
windows (and far less costly given I use both a speech synth and braille
display unit). for my specialized needs, I would have to pay upwards of
$1,500 in purchase costs and license fees to have accessibility in windows.
for the cost of $79.00, I got all of that in Suse linux 9.2 (Novell branch)
and I get free tech support from Novell. Can't say that with windows can
you?

-- 
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6

Why don't you read the history of C, Unix, and then read up on the 
history of GNU and Linux. Deciede for yourself if linux sucks or not. 
You must be a troll because no one would suggest traditional unix is 
better because linux is fragmented. There are many inconpatable versions 
of unix such as HP-Unix, Solarus,Tru64, AIX ect and there is only one 
version of the linux kernel.


Luna Lane wrote:
> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> assignments.
> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
> desktop alternative to Windows.
> We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
> we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
> solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
> 98 percent of the market".
> 
> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
> Or maybe that was 2003?
> How about 2012?
> 
> Luna Lane

floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> My initial reaction was thinking it was a pretty lame troll; but I
> was wrong.  Look at the long list of suckers who respond just as if
> this "prof" is real!
> 
Wow! *One* whole reply to the original post. That's huge!
It's going to take this group weeks to recover from this type of attack...

Ralph <no@way.com> writes:

> Well, Miss Moon, you know what they say" "those that can, do. Those that
> can't, teach". Looks like your teacher is yet more proof that those that
> can't hack it in the real world because they are too stupid and can't deal
> with technical realities end up teaching. 
 
Bollocks.  The OP is a troll telling a purely fictional story.
Why pretend that it confirms your stupid prejudices about higher
education?

-- 
Jesse F. Hughes

"The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, and
Hubris."-- Larry Wall in the Perl5 Manpages

Mosimann Marius wrote:

> Yeah, buying a Mac you pay for a lot of advertising and the oh so nice
> lifestyle you fell for. Ever noticed that in the movies, at least from
> what I've seen, 9 out of 10 Computers (mostly laptops of course) are Mac?

I've also noticed in movies etc., that computers make noises, when ever text
(in *HUGE* fonts) appears on the screen.  ;-)

Patrick Grimbergen wrote:

> WTF does you teacher think a MAC is running on? Windoze? No, it's Linux
> (MacOSX).. think again mate!

Ummm...  Perhaps BSD???

ray wrote:

> My first reaction is that your prof has been isolated from the real world.

Isn't that part of a prof's job description???  ;-)

Nick Ballard <nrballardco@yahoo.com> wrote:

> floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> 
> > My initial reaction was thinking it was a pretty lame troll; but I
> > was wrong.  Look at the long list of suckers who respond just as if
> > this "prof" is real!
> > 
> Wow! *One* whole reply to the original post. That's huge!
> It's going to take this group weeks to recover from this type of attack...

Oops.  Nevermind.  My client chopped this thread for some reason..

Mosimann Marius wrote:

> Ever noticed that in the movies, at least from what
> I've seen, 9 out of 10 Computers (mostly laptops of course) are Mac?

Ever been on a movie set? Ever notice that the props used in movies are
almost always non-functional? A phone used does not actually work and the
person is not actually talking to someone when they are talking on a phone
in the movies. The room they are in is probably not a room at all but a set
of 3 walls on a set... You get my point. Just because something is used in
a movie does NOT mean it is truly useful or even that it works. Now, if you
want to talk about what makes virtually all the movie computer generated
special effects, you are talking, you guessed it, LINUX. 

Mosimann Marius wrote:

> Yeah, buying a Mac you pay for a lot of advertising and the oh so nice
> lifestyle you fell for. Ever noticed that in the movies, at least from
> what I've seen, 9 out of 10 Computers (mostly laptops of course) are Mac?

I've also noticed in movies etc., that computers make noises, when ever text
(in HUGE fonts) appears on the screen.  ;-)

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> Ralph <no@way.com> writes:
> 
>> Well, Miss Moon, you know what they say" "those that can, do. Those that
>> can't, teach". Looks like your teacher is yet more proof that those that
>> can't hack it in the real world because they are too stupid and can't
>> deal with technical realities end up teaching.
>  
> Bollocks.  The OP is a troll telling a purely fictional story.
> Why pretend that it confirms your stupid prejudices about higher
> education?
> 

Proof of all points? Why claim that it is a fictional story just because she
says things you don't like? Do you have actual PROOF that it is a fictional
story? BTW, the person that told me the line "those that can, do. Those
that can't, teach" WAS a higher education teacher that was totally
frustrated at the lack of ability of the instructors he worked with. And
after dealing with some instructors about system administration, I have to
agree with him.  

James Knott wrote:

> Mosimann Marius wrote:
> 
>> Yeah, buying a Mac you pay for a lot of advertising and the oh so nice
>> lifestyle you fell for. Ever noticed that in the movies, at least from
>> what I've seen, 9 out of 10 Computers (mostly laptops of course) are Mac?
> 
> I've also noticed in movies etc., that computers make noises, when ever
> text
> (in HUGE fonts) appears on the screen.  ;-)

Not only that, but have you ever watched them type? What SHOULD be coming up
on the scree is asdfl;lkjasdf;lkjasdf;lkjasdf;lasdf;lasdf! The computers
used in movies are props and are NOT actually functioning as a computer.
What is coming up on the screen would come up no matter what the person
types. 

Mosimann Marius wrote:

> Yeah, buying a Mac you pay for a lot of advertising and the oh so nice
> lifestyle you fell for. Ever noticed that in the movies, at least from
> what I've seen, 9 out of 10 Computers (mostly laptops of course) are Mac?

And have you ever noticed how fast they were able to hack into those
computers? What DOES that say about a MAC, eh?

Geez, can I have fun with this one!

Paul Colquhoun <postmaster@andor.dropbear.id.au> writes:

>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 06:10:36 GMT, David Goode <djg39@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>| Bill Marcum wrote:
>|
>|>> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
>|>> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
>|>> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
>|>> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
>|> 
>|> Total lack of shrinkwrap?  WTF does that mean?
>|
>| My SuSE 9.3 Professional came in a shrink-wrapped box, so it clearly doesn't
>| mean the obvious. Maybe in this 'professor's' universe it means something
>| entirely different.


>Probably refering to a lack of 3rd party commercial (proprietry?) software
>for Linux. You know, the stuff you buy in shops, in shrinkwrap boxes.
>Things like games, etc.

As opposed to the 10 GB or more  of stuff you can get for free. 
(Mandrake for example makes 8GB available for free and plf has at least 2GB
more.) Yup, This prof really likes shelling out his money. I have some
empty boxes. If he agrees to buy a few hundred I can get a shrinkwrap
machine and send them to him. 

beefalo <beefalo@noware.org> writes:

>TokaMundo wrote:
>>   Considering that OSX is ALSO a variant of UNIX that leans more
>> toward Linux (BSD) than Unix, I'd say that he needs to look in a
>> mirror.

>Ah... I agreed with you right up until the BSD comparison. OS X is based 
>on BSD, yes, but BSD != Linux. Two completely different kernels.

Which was what he said. 
 He also said that BSD was more similar to Linux than to Unix. 
Note also that both use the gnu tools which makes them far more similar to
each other.

Unruh wrote:
> spinny_whop@yahoo.com (Luna Lane) writes:
> [...]
>>of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> 
> What is fragmented? 

My question, too. I think it means no centralized development, which 
both is and isn't true, IMHO.

>>what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
>>unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
> 
> 
> ??? What is he talking about. All of the distros are available in
> shrinkwrap. 
> [...]
If this isn't a troll, I'd guess that 'shrinkwrap' refers to 3rd-party
software.


-- 
Bill Wyatt (REMOVEwyattTHIS@cfa.harvard.edu) "remove this" for email
    Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory  (Cambridge, MA, USA)

Your "professor" needs to leave Microsoft and actually apply for tenure.

Ralph <no@way.com> writes:

> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Ralph <no@way.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Well, Miss Moon, you know what they say" "those that can, do. Those that
>>> can't, teach". Looks like your teacher is yet more proof that those that
>>> can't hack it in the real world because they are too stupid and can't
>>> deal with technical realities end up teaching.
>>  
>> Bollocks.  The OP is a troll telling a purely fictional story.
>> Why pretend that it confirms your stupid prejudices about higher
>> education?
>> 
>
> Proof of all points? Why claim that it is a fictional story just because she
> says things you don't like? Do you have actual PROOF that it is a fictional
> story? 

Do you have any reason at all to believe the story?  If not, then it
provides no evidence for your prejudices.

It's a first-time post from a Google account.  It provides no
confirming evidence for the claims and I doubt that OS criticisms like
these pop up in the classroom much (I've never seen it happen, aside
from brief swipes at Microsoft).  The post is a troll.

> BTW, the person that told me the line "those that can, do. Those
> that can't, teach" WAS a higher education teacher that was totally
> frustrated at the lack of ability of the instructors he worked with. And
> after dealing with some instructors about system administration, I have to
> agree with him.  

So what?  The post was an obvious troll.  The only reason you pretend
it is true is because it confirms your prejudices about professors.  

Pathetic, really.
-- 
"[Criticizing JSH's mathematics will result in] one of the worst debacles in
the history of the world.  It is foretold in most mythologies and religions.
And yes, you are the ones, the cursed ones, who destroy the world."  
    --James S. Harris reads from the Aztec Book of the Damned Mathematicians

Luna Lane wrote:
>  My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
> desktop alternative to Windows.

My professor told us that the world is flat.  He warned us about
traveling too far into the ocean or we would fall off the edge into a
void from which there is no return.

Well, this is not the first or last time this has been said about Linux.
Anyone who has been around long enough, i.e .the professor and has played
with Unix systems back in the 70s and 80s will know that all they done were
take all the things that were bad and wrong with UNIX and built them into
Linux.

They should have just started from scratch!! 


Michael Zerr wrote:

> Why don't you read the history of C, Unix, and then read up on the
> history of GNU and Linux. Deciede for yourself if linux sucks or not.
> You must be a troll because no one would suggest traditional unix is
> better because linux is fragmented. There are many inconpatable versions
> of unix such as HP-Unix, Solarus,Tru64, AIX ect and there is only one
> version of the linux kernel.
> 
> 
> Luna Lane wrote:
>> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
>> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
>> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
>> assignments.
>> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
>> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
>> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
>> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
>> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
>> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
>> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
>> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
>> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
>> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
>> desktop alternative to Windows.
>> We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
>> we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
>> solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
>> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
>> 98 percent of the market".
>> 
>> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
>> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
>> Or maybe that was 2003?
>> How about 2012?
>> 
>> Luna Lane

amosf wrote:
> Luna Lane wrote something like:
> 
> 
> 
>>Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
>>Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
>>Or maybe that was 2003?
>>How about 2012?
> 
> 
> Hi. You may be new here or more likely you are a sock puppet. This sort of
> troll we see a lot and you need to work on it a bit, but you should still
> get a few troll-bait bites. 
> 
> Good luck!
> 

And I'll bet my next month's pay that by the end of the day there will 
be at least 50 posts in response.

Why all the bandwidth gets wasted on these trolls I'll never know.

This will be my first and last such comment on *this* subject as I do 
not want to add the the noise.

Rich Piotrowski
-- 
"Now are you talking about what it is you know
or just repeating what it was you heard."
                                         Grace Slick
To E-mail use: rpiotro(at)wi(dot)rr(dot)com

Alan R <alan@nonsite.co.uk> writes:

>Well, this is not the first or last time this has been said about Linux.
>Anyone who has been around long enough, i.e .the professor and has played
>with Unix systems back in the 70s and 80s will know that all they done were
>take all the things that were bad and wrong with UNIX and built them into
>Linux.

>They should have just started from scratch!! 

They did. Linus wrote Linux from scratch. 
The tools et al were the GNU tools which were closely based on Unix tools. 

What are "all the things that were bad and wrong with Unix" that you think
have been taken into Linux? 



>Michael Zerr wrote:

>> Why don't you read the history of C, Unix, and then read up on the
>> history of GNU and Linux. Deciede for yourself if linux sucks or not.
>> You must be a troll because no one would suggest traditional unix is
>> better because linux is fragmented. There are many inconpatable versions
>> of unix such as HP-Unix, Solarus,Tru64, AIX ect and there is only one
>> version of the linux kernel.
>> 
>> 
>> Luna Lane wrote:
>>> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
>>> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
>>> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
>>> assignments.
>>> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
>>> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
>>> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
>>> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
>>> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
>>> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
>>> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
>>> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
>>> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
>>> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
>>> desktop alternative to Windows.
>>> We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
>>> we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
>>> solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
>>> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
>>> 98 percent of the market".
>>> 
>>> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
>>> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
>>> Or maybe that was 2003?
>>> How about 2012?
>>> 
>>> Luna Lane

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> Ralph <no@way.com> writes:
> 
>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> Ralph <no@way.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Well, Miss Moon, you know what they say" "those that can, do. Those
>>>> that can't, teach". Looks like your teacher is yet more proof that
>>>> those that can't hack it in the real world because they are too stupid
>>>> and can't deal with technical realities end up teaching.
>>>  
>>> Bollocks.  The OP is a troll telling a purely fictional story.
>>> Why pretend that it confirms your stupid prejudices about higher
>>> education?
>>> 
>>
>> Proof of all points? Why claim that it is a fictional story just because
>> she says things you don't like? Do you have actual PROOF that it is a
>> fictional story?
> 
> Do you have any reason at all to believe the story?  If not, then it
> provides no evidence for your prejudices.

????? That is your PROOF? I don't have any reason to believe YOUR post, so
according to your logic, you provide no evidence I have prejudices. 

> 
> It's a first-time post from a Google account. 

That is not proof. Every legitimate poster that uses Google had no posting
history when they first posted using google. Your logic would mean that
every legitimate poster using google would be a troll the first time they
posted no matter how legitimage their post. With logic like that, you must
be a higher education instructor! 

> It provides no 
> confirming evidence for the claims and I doubt that OS criticisms like
> these pop up in the classroom much (I've never seen it happen, aside
> from brief swipes at Microsoft).  

That is not proof. Claims do NOT need "confirming evidence" to be true. The
only need for "confirming evidence" to help you believe the claim. Lack of
"confirming evidence" is NOT proof that the post is a troll. Considering
the vast number of instructors that are out there and the huge number of
classes and instructor/student encounters that you are not at or privy to
makes your personal experience NONSENSE.  

> The post is a troll. 

Unproven. The fact that you would claim that all first time posters using
google, even posting legitimate posts that have no "confirming
evidence" (but still legitimate) are trolls is just plain nonsense. 

> 
>> BTW, the person that told me the line "those that can, do. Those
>> that can't, teach" WAS a higher education teacher that was totally
>> frustrated at the lack of ability of the instructors he worked with. And
>> after dealing with some instructors about system administration, I have
>> to agree with him.
> 
> So what?  The post was an obvious troll. 

That is simply your claim. It is possible that a first time poster did
indeed have these experiences. But then again, I have no reason to believe
you, so according to your logic, you have proven nothing. Posting under a
single name and not though google does not prove that the poster is
reputable, just look at DFS. 

> The only reason you pretend 
> it is true is because it confirms your prejudices about professors.

You have to ignore the fact that I have personal experience in order to
continue your claims. The fact of the matter is, you have not PROVEN that
the post IS a troll. You have not proven that a first time poster using
google can not post a valid point. Remember that ALL legitimate posters
that use google did NOT have a posting history when they posted their first
legitimate post though google. Your logic would mean that every legitimate
poster that uses google is a troll until they have a posting history. This
is simply nonsens. 

> 
> Pathetic, really.

Yes, you are. You must be a higher education instructor and judging by your
lack of contact with reality, you must have tenure! 

Noah Roberts wrote:

> My professor told us that the world is flat.  He warned us about
> traveling too far into the ocean or we would fall off the edge into a
> void from which there is no return.

And there are even some who believe in "God".  It's amazing the stupid
things that some people believe.

Ralph wrote:

>> It's a first-time post from a Google account. 
>
>That is not proof. 

Oh come on, Ralph.  

>Every legitimate poster that uses Google had no posting
>history when they first posted using google. 

But there's first post is not usually a blatant troll, like this one
was.

>Your logic would mean that
>every legitimate poster using google would be a troll the first time they
>posted no matter how legitimage their post.

Wrong.

Ralph <no@way.com> writes:

> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Ralph <no@way.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ralph <no@way.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> Well, Miss Moon, you know what they say" "those that can, do. Those
>>>>> that can't, teach". Looks like your teacher is yet more proof that
>>>>> those that can't hack it in the real world because they are too stupid
>>>>> and can't deal with technical realities end up teaching.
>>>>  
>>>> Bollocks.  The OP is a troll telling a purely fictional story.
>>>> Why pretend that it confirms your stupid prejudices about higher
>>>> education?
>>>> 
>>>
>>> Proof of all points? Why claim that it is a fictional story just because
>>> she says things you don't like? Do you have actual PROOF that it is a
>>> fictional story?
>> 
>> Do you have any reason at all to believe the story?  If not, then it
>> provides no evidence for your prejudices.
>
> ????? That is your PROOF? I don't have any reason to believe YOUR post, so
> according to your logic, you provide no evidence I have prejudices. 

If you really believe that this obvious troll was reporting a
legitimate classroom discussion and that this gives support to your
opinions regarding teachers, well, have at it.

But you're a fool.  And, I suppose, dishonest as well.  I'm confident
that you wouldn't hesitate to call the OP a troll in other
circumstances.  Now, however, you feel compelled to defend taking the
OP seriously so that your spurious comments regarding educators are
justified.

-- 
"It seems to me that in wartime Americans shouldn't be attacking each
other in this way on a *worldwide* forum.  Then again, I know I'm an
American, but I have no way of knowing that you are, which would
explain a lot."  --James Harris, on why Yanks should accept his proof

On 2005-06-28, Luna Lane <spinny_whop@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> assignments.
> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.

	I would not trust the competence of any TA or Prof that
argues against Linux like this. This kind of thinking simply 
doesn't have a place in a CIS department.

[deletia]

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \

Alan R <alan@nonsite.co.uk> wrote:
>Well, this is not the first or last time this has been said about Linux.
>Anyone who has been around long enough, i.e .the professor and has played
>with Unix systems back in the 70s and 80s will know that all they done were
>take all the things that were bad and wrong with UNIX and built them into
>Linux.
>
>They should have just started from scratch!!

You are even more clueless that the OP, hard as that is to believe.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>Noah Roberts wrote:
>
>> My professor told us that the world is flat.  He warned us about
>> traveling too far into the ocean or we would fall off the edge into a
>> void from which there is no return.
>
>And there are even some who believe in "God".  It's amazing the stupid
>things that some people believe.

Amazing, but not really a silly thing to believe.  What's
absolutely silly is the idea that She would have created man in
her image.

(In fact, the Creater gave Raven the responsibility of putting
all this together, and we probably don't want to know what She
actually looks like.  My suspicians are that She would be a
medium size seal point Siamese though...)

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

James Knott wrote:
> Noah Roberts wrote:
>
> > My professor told us that the world is flat.  He warned us about
> > traveling too far into the ocean or we would fall off the edge into a
> > void from which there is no return.
>
> And there are even some who believe in "God".  It's amazing the stupid
> things that some people believe.

Eat my ass, looser.

Unruh wrote:
>  He also said that BSD was more similar to Linux than to Unix. 
> Note also that both use the gnu tools which makes them far more similar to
> each other.

I'm aware of that. But he was also _wrong_.

The BSD kernels are in no way similar to the Linux kernels. The only 
similarity is that, as you said, the GNU tools are packaged with these 
kernels in most distributions.

But _Linux_ has nothing to do with BSD. Linux is the _kernel_ part of 
the 'operating system' which goes by the name GNU/Linux.

Would you claim that the HURD kernel is similar to the Linux kernel 
because they both use the GNU tools?

--beefalo

James Knott wrote:
> Noah Roberts wrote:
>
> > My professor told us that the world is flat.  He warned us about
> > traveling too far into the ocean or we would fall off the edge into a
> > void from which there is no return.
>
> And there are even some who believe in "God".  It's amazing the stupid
> things that some people believe.

Some people think we should persecute those with mental disabilities
and those who's beliefs differ from their own.  The world is just
filled with all kinds of assholes who lack any moral or ethical values
and they come under all kinds of guises.

It is contended that some human beings exist, who, in consequence of
  a deficiency in the moral organs, are as blind to the dictates of
justice,
  as others are deaf to melody. Combe, Moral Philosophy, Lect. 12.

http://www.wkonline.com/d/Moral_insanity.html

Man, what's with all the crazies from cola and other advocacy groups
posting here? And all the fools answering, and feeding them!? Do you
people not realize that, for reasons beyond my understanding, these posts
are intended to piss people off? Yes, they got more sophisticated,
they no longer just swear at Linux, they're trying to make it look like an
actual well thought argument, pretending they are serious. Just look at
this thread, it has tens of useless pointless answers, as if we care
about what her "professor" says. 

I'm sure I'm not saying anything new, but given the large number of people
who take these posts seriously, I felt I had to. 

'nuff said.

beefalo <beefalo@noware.org> writes:

>Unruh wrote:
>>  He also said that BSD was more similar to Linux than to Unix. 
>> Note also that both use the gnu tools which makes them far more similar to
>> each other.

>I'm aware of that. But he was also _wrong_.

>The BSD kernels are in no way similar to the Linux kernels. The only 
>similarity is that, as you said, the GNU tools are packaged with these 
>kernels in most distributions.

>But _Linux_ has nothing to do with BSD. Linux is the _kernel_ part of 
>the 'operating system' which goes by the name GNU/Linux.

>Would you claim that the HURD kernel is similar to the Linux kernel 
>because they both use the GNU tools?

No, I would claim that the Linux OPERATING SYSTEM was similar to BSD
because of this. The operating system is more than just the kernel.
And when people discuss Linux they almost never discuss just the kernel.



>--beefalo

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
> 
>>Noah Roberts wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My professor told us that the world is flat.  He warned us about
>>>traveling too far into the ocean or we would fall off the edge into a
>>>void from which there is no return.
>>
>>And there are even some who believe in "God".  It's amazing the stupid
>>things that some people believe.
> 
> 
> Amazing, but not really a silly thing to believe.  What's
> absolutely silly is the idea that She would have created man in
> her image.
> 
> (In fact, the Creater gave Raven the responsibility of putting
> all this together, and we probably don't want to know what She
> actually looks like.  My suspicians are that She would be a
> medium size seal point Siamese though...)
> 
God can't be a 'she', as he was the father of Jesus.

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> Ralph <no@way.com> writes:
> 
>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> Ralph <no@way.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ralph <no@way.com> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, Miss Moon, you know what they say" "those that can, do. Those
>>>>>> that can't, teach". Looks like your teacher is yet more proof that
>>>>>> those that can't hack it in the real world because they are too
>>>>>> stupid and can't deal with technical realities end up teaching.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Bollocks.  The OP is a troll telling a purely fictional story.
>>>>> Why pretend that it confirms your stupid prejudices about higher
>>>>> education?
>>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> Proof of all points? Why claim that it is a fictional story just
>>>> because she says things you don't like? Do you have actual PROOF that
>>>> it is a fictional story?
>>> 
>>> Do you have any reason at all to believe the story?  If not, then it
>>> provides no evidence for your prejudices.
>>
>> ????? That is your PROOF? I don't have any reason to believe YOUR post,
>> so according to your logic, you provide no evidence I have prejudices.
> 
> If you really believe that this obvious troll was reporting a
> legitimate classroom discussion and that this gives support to your
> opinions regarding teachers, well, have at it.

So you admit that you don't have proof. 

> 
> But you're a fool.  And, I suppose, dishonest as well.

How do you get dishonest by my saying there is no REAL proof that this
person is a troll? Talk about going over the deep end! 

> I'm confident 
> that you wouldn't hesitate to call the OP a troll in other
> circumstances.  

I addressed the OP as legitimate well before this part of the tread because
there is no real proof that it is not. 

> Now, however, you feel compelled to defend taking the 
> OP seriously so that your spurious comments regarding educators are
> justified.
> 

Again, you ignore the fact that I had my beliefs about educators well before
the this tread started. My belief comes from comments BY educators about
educators AND from personal experience. I am sorry that you seem to be
personally insulted by my beliefs and that you have to call someone a
troll, WITHOUT PROOF, to keep your delusions. 

chrisv wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
> 
>>> It's a first-time post from a Google account.
>>
>>That is not proof.
> 
> Oh come on, Ralph.
> 
>>Every legitimate poster that uses Google had no posting
>>history when they first posted using google.
> 
> But there's first post is not usually a blatant troll, like this one
> was.

Where is your PROOF that it was a blatant troll? Why should I believe YOUR
claims? 

> 
>>Your logic would mean that
>>every legitimate poster using google would be a troll the first time they
>>posted no matter how legitimage their post.
> 
> Wrong.

How so? Lord chrisv sits on his duff making unfounded, unproven claims about
each post? Where is your proof? You are making claims about something but
you can not provide proof, that makes YOU the troll in my book. 

Somebody wrote:
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> > (In fact, the Creater gave Raven the responsibility of putting
> > all this together, and we probably don't want to know what She
> > actually looks like.  My suspicians are that She would be a
> > medium size seal point Siamese though...)
> >
> God can't be a 'she', as he was the father of Jesus.

I doubt God even has a gender.  God is also described in a feminine
context by Jesus himself (mother hen).  And he/she/it doesn't need to
mate to procreate.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Luna Lane <spinny_whop@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.

Your professor is a fucking moron and so are you for quoting him.
-- 

Somebody <notgood@all.au> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Noah Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>My professor told us that the world is flat.  He warned us about
>>>>traveling too far into the ocean or we would fall off the edge into a
>>>>void from which there is no return.
>>>
>>>And there are even some who believe in "God".  It's amazing the stupid
>>>things that some people believe.
>> Amazing, but not really a silly thing to believe.  What's
>> absolutely silly is the idea that She would have created man in
>> her image.
>> (In fact, the Creater gave Raven the responsibility of putting
>> all this together, and we probably don't want to know what She
>> actually looks like.  My suspicians are that She would be a
>> medium size seal point Siamese though...)
>>
>God can't be a 'she', as he was the father of Jesus.

Well, *your* god perhaps.

But we each create our own God.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

> Well, *your* god perhaps.
> 
> But we each create our own God.

_I_ am your God, bitch!

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:46:23 +0000, Alan R wrote:

> Well, this is not the first or last time this has been said about Linux.
> Anyone who has been around long enough, i.e .the professor and has played
> with Unix systems back in the 70s and 80s will know that all they done were
> take all the things that were bad and wrong with UNIX and built them into
> Linux.
> 
> They should have just started from scratch!!

1) It *was* written from scratch.

2) Like anyone would value the opinion of someone so stupid as to top-post.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:46:41 +0200, Somebody wrote:

> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>Noah Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>My professor told us that the world is flat.  He warned us about
>>>>traveling too far into the ocean or we would fall off the edge into a
>>>>void from which there is no return.
>>>
>>>And there are even some who believe in "God".  It's amazing the stupid
>>>things that some people believe.
>> 
>> 
>> Amazing, but not really a silly thing to believe.  What's
>> absolutely silly is the idea that She would have created man in
>> her image.
>> 
>> (In fact, the Creater gave Raven the responsibility of putting
>> all this together, and we probably don't want to know what She
>> actually looks like.  My suspicians are that She would be a
>> medium size seal point Siamese though...)
>> 
> God can't be a 'she', as he was the father of Jesus.

Are you placing limits on what's supposed to be an omnipotent being now?
Tsk, tsk, tsk...

[snips]

Ralph wrote :

> Not only that, but have you ever watched them type? What SHOULD be coming up
> on the scree is asdfl;lkjasdf;lkjasdf;lkjasdf;lasdf;lasdf! The computers
> used in movies are props and are NOT actually functioning as a computer.
> What is coming up on the screen would come up no matter what the person
> types. 

Things like that only bother me a little - sorta like watching someone 
"play" the guitar or the piano, but seeing they're not actually playing 
the right chords, hitting the right notes.

What does bug me, endlessly, is the details they persist in including, 
yet getting wrong.  "Look up his IP."  "Okay, it's 215.122.96.387."

Umm... who is this supposed to appeal to?  The non-techie viewer, to 
whom the term "IP address" itself means next to nothing, and the actual 
address is simply gobbledy-gook?  Or the techie viewer, for whom the 
whole process has just been reduced to a third-rate farce?

In short, if you can't get something simple right, why include it at 
all?  Too weird...

Somebody wrote:

> God can't be a 'she', as he was the father of Jesus.

Yeah, well if you want to believe in fairy tales.

Noah Roberts wrote:

> 
>> Well, *your* god perhaps.
>> 
>> But we each create our own God.
> 
> _I_ am your God, bitch!

I thought you were the guy with the boat.  ;-)

Noah Roberts wrote:

> Eat my ass, looser.

Such elegant prose.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:57:52 -0400, James Knott wrote:

> Noah Roberts wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> Well, *your* god perhaps.
>>> 
>>> But we each create our own God.
>> 
>> _I_ am your God, bitch!
> 
> I thought you were the guy with the boat.  ;-)

If you're looking for the "man in the little boat" you are *really*
looking at in the wrong place...

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@stmartin.edu> wrote:
>> Well, *your* god perhaps.
>>
>> But we each create our own God.
>
>_I_ am your God, bitch!

Sorry, I've created my own, and she looks a *lot* better than
you.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>Noah Roberts wrote:
>
>> Eat my ass, looser.
>
>Such elegant prose.

Hey, you stepped on his deity, what did you expect?

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

James Knott wrote:
> Patrick Grimbergen wrote:
> 
>>WTF does you teacher think a MAC is running on? Windoze? No, it's Linux
>>(MacOSX).. think again mate!
> 
> Ummm...  Perhaps BSD???
> 

Egh.. pardon me to both... in my rage I overlooked the detail that *BSD 
is not equal to Linux... but you get the point... It's *nix based.

In the most recent issue of Linux Magazine there is a detailed 
description of MacOSX... The type you usually find about Linux 
Distros... Might be worth getting one, OSX is treated as a distro and 
therefore it offers good material for comparison.

The testers are put off about several "features" such as needing 
"game-skills" to push certain puttons...

James Knott wrote:
> Patrick Grimbergen wrote:
> 
>>WTF does you teacher think a MAC is running on? Windoze? No, it's Linux
>>(MacOSX).. think again mate!
> 
> Ummm...  Perhaps BSD???
> 


Egh... I'll have to excuse me to you both... in all the haste I 
overlooked the fact that *BSD is not Linux... (but Gentoo come pretty 
close to *BSD).

In the recent issue of Linux Magazine (dutch version) there is a 
"distro" description of OSX... Because it is treated like a distro it is 
good comparison material (I have no clue how stuff works in WinXP anymore).

They where put-off by several features that made "game-skills" a 
requerement for pushing menu buttons, but general idea was that it would 
make a fine distro.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
> >Noah Roberts wrote:
> >
> >> Eat my ass, looser.
> >
> >Such elegant prose.
>
> Hey, you stepped on his deity, what did you expect?

Not so much that but the fact that it was a totally unprovoked and rude
attack; God can defend himself.  Someone that attacks another person's
religious beliefs like that for no reason at all deserves no respect.
It is one thing to argue about things but quite another to kick people
in the teeth over nothing with absolutely no provocation.

Of course he has already stated plainly that he believes people that
believe in God should be persecuted and abused because they are stupid
and all "stupid people" should be persecuted and abused; so his
meaningless diatrabe should have been expected.  I think I would still
shove my foot up his ass if he ever said something like that to me
within my reach.  He really is the worst kind of asshole and doesn't
even realize he would be top on the list of "stupid people" if such a
policy were enacted.

In short, he is a total looser and he can eat my ass.

Unruh wrote:
> No, I would claim that the Linux OPERATING SYSTEM was similar to BSD
> because of this. The operating system is more than just the kernel.
> And when people discuss Linux they almost never discuss just the kernel.

Well good for them, but they're missing an important point. Linux _is_ 
the kernel, and nothing more.

--beefalo

beefalo wrote:
> Unruh wrote:
> > No, I would claim that the Linux OPERATING SYSTEM was similar to BSD
> > because of this. The operating system is more than just the kernel.
> > And when people discuss Linux they almost never discuss just the kernel.
>
> Well good for them, but they're missing an important point. Linux _is_
> the kernel, and nothing more.

It is both.

On 29 Jun 2005 14:17:29 -0700, "Noah Roberts" <nroberts@stmartin.edu>
Gave us:

>
>> Well, *your* god perhaps.
>> 
>> But we each create our own God.
>
>_I_ am your God, bitch!

  Noah, you're not!

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> [snips]
> 
> Ralph wrote :
> 
>> Not only that, but have you ever watched them type? What SHOULD be coming
>> up on the scree is asdfl;lkjasdf;lkjasdf;lkjasdf;lasdf;lasdf! The
>> computers used in movies are props and are NOT actually functioning as a
>> computer. What is coming up on the screen would come up no matter what
>> the person types.
> 
> Things like that only bother me a little - sorta like watching someone
> "play" the guitar or the piano, but seeing they're not actually playing
> the right chords, hitting the right notes.
> 
> What does bug me, endlessly, is the details they persist in including,
> yet getting wrong.  "Look up his IP."  "Okay, it's 215.122.96.387."

That does not really bother me since it could just be that they are
deliberately giving out an unusable address that won't cause anyone any
trouble. Sort of like a 555-xxxx number for a phone number. It is a number
nobody has so people that are crazy enough to dial the number to see if it
works won't be bugging someone that just happen to have the number used in
the movie (at least 555 numbers used to be that way). 

> 
> Umm... who is this supposed to appeal to?  The non-techie viewer, to
> whom the term "IP address" itself means next to nothing, and the actual
> address is simply gobbledy-gook?  Or the techie viewer, for whom the
> whole process has just been reduced to a third-rate farce?
> 
> In short, if you can't get something simple right, why include it at
> all?  Too weird...

Ever hear of dramatic license? The point I was making is that just because a
MAC was used in a move is NOT an endorsement of the useability of a MAC. 

TokaMundo wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2005 14:17:29 -0700, "Noah Roberts" <nroberts@stmartin.edu>
> Gave us:
> 
> 
>>>Well, *your* god perhaps.
>>>
>>>But we each create our own God.
>>
>>_I_ am your God, bitch!
> 
> 
>   Noah, you're not!

;)

I am.

You don't have a professor. It's obvious that you haven't even
graduated from high school.

If you could find your own asshole without assistance, I'd be
surprised.

Why don't you just shut your obnoxious and ignorant mouth
and get a life?

No one here gives a shit what you think.

Any below-average child with his Mommy's computer can post
garbage on the usenet. You aren't impressing anyone but
shit-for-brains losers like yourself.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:36:44 -0700, Noah Roberts
<nroberts@dontemailme.com> Gave us:

>TokaMundo wrote:
>> On 29 Jun 2005 14:17:29 -0700, "Noah Roberts" <nroberts@stmartin.edu>
>> Gave us:
>> 
>> 
>>>>Well, *your* god perhaps.
>>>>
>>>>But we each create our own God.
>>>
>>>_I_ am your God, bitch!
>> 
>> 
>>   Noah, you're not!
>
>;)
>
>I am.

  You am that you am, but you am not that am.  Sorry, Charlie...

  He stole the handle, and you were never on the train...   :]

 No way to see that there was no way to slow it down...

Ralph wrote something like:

> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>> In short, if you can't get something simple right, why include it at
>> all?  Too weird...
> 
> Ever hear of dramatic license? The point I was making is that just because
> a MAC was used in a move is NOT an endorsement of the useability of a MAC.

I have published stories and such which involve computers. You can't make it
exactly real as a real computer because the ordinary reader just doesn't
get it. You have to write it as they expect a computer to be from all the
other crap they see and read... Or at least you try and find something in
between that you can live with :)

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 

Noah Roberts wrote:

> Someone that attacks another person's
> religious beliefs like that for no reason at all deserves no respect.

The delusion called "religion" deserves no respect.  It's a fantasy.

> I think I would still
> shove my foot up his ass if he ever said something like that to me
> within my reach. 

I guess this is what they teach in sunday school these days.

Mosimann Marius wrote:

> Yeah, buying a Mac you pay for a lot of advertising and the oh so nice
> lifestyle you fell for. Ever noticed that in the movies, at least from what
> I've seen, 9 out of 10 Computers (mostly laptops of course) are Mac?

You're forgetting the ones being used by guys in black hats...

-- 
Ron House     house@usq.edu.au
               http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house

Noah Roberts wrote:
> 
> James Knott wrote:
> 
>>Noah Roberts wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My professor told us that the world is flat.  He warned us about
>>>traveling too far into the ocean or we would fall off the edge into a
>>>void from which there is no return.
>>
>>And there are even some who believe in "God".  It's amazing the stupid
>>things that some people believe.
> 
> 
> Some people think we should persecute those with mental disabilities
> and those who's beliefs differ from their own.  The world is just
> filled with all kinds of assholes who lack any moral or ethical values
> and they come under all kinds of guises.
> 
> It is contended that some human beings exist, who, in consequence of
>   a deficiency in the moral organs, are as blind to the dictates of
> justice,
>   as others are deaf to melody. Combe, Moral Philosophy, Lect. 12.
> 
> http://www.wkonline.com/d/Moral_insanity.html
> 
There are many religions who believe that they are the only true and 
right religion, and insist on making all other religions wrong, even to 
the point of fighting wars over it.  Many of those religions claim to be 
Christian, but not all of them make that claim.

I find it hard to concieve of a group that professes to love everyone 
and is willing to kill for it.  That is absolute moral insanity!

John Bowling wrote something like:

> Noah Roberts wrote:
>> 
>> James Knott wrote:
>> 
>>>Noah Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>My professor told us that the world is flat.  He warned us about
>>>>traveling too far into the ocean or we would fall off the edge into a
>>>>void from which there is no return.
>>>
>>>And there are even some who believe in "God".  It's amazing the stupid
>>>things that some people believe.
>> 
>> 
>> Some people think we should persecute those with mental disabilities
>> and those who's beliefs differ from their own.  The world is just
>> filled with all kinds of assholes who lack any moral or ethical values
>> and they come under all kinds of guises.
>> 
>> It is contended that some human beings exist, who, in consequence of
>>   a deficiency in the moral organs, are as blind to the dictates of
>> justice,
>>   as others are deaf to melody. Combe, Moral Philosophy, Lect. 12.
>> 
>> http://www.wkonline.com/d/Moral_insanity.html
>> 
> There are many religions who believe that they are the only true and
> right religion, and insist on making all other religions wrong, even to
> the point of fighting wars over it.  Many of those religions claim to be
> Christian, but not all of them make that claim.

A religion that doesn't consider itself is the one true religion isn't
really serious about it, is it? 

> I find it hard to concieve of a group that professes to love everyone
> and is willing to kill for it.  That is absolute moral insanity!

Killing is okay in the name of god. If the one you kill is the right
religion then you have done them a favour and sent them to their god. If
the one you kill is the wrong religion you will go to your own god...
Either way, somebody goes to god... Maybe.

Of course if the two forces at war are both the wrong religion then they are
just wasting everybody's time and it was no great loss to the world
anyway... The same pretty much goes for atheists as far as god(s) is/are
concerned...

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@stmartin.edu> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>> >Noah Roberts wrote:
>> >
>> >> Eat my ass, looser.
>> >
>> >Such elegant prose.
>>
>> Hey, you stepped on his deity, what did you expect?
>
>Not so much that but the fact that it was a totally unprovoked and rude
>attack; God can defend himself.  Someone that attacks another person's
>religious beliefs like that for no reason at all deserves no respect.
>It is one thing to argue about things but quite another to kick people
>in the teeth over nothing with absolutely no provocation.
>
>Of course he has already stated plainly that he believes people that
>believe in God should be persecuted and abused because they are stupid
>and all "stupid people" should be persecuted and abused; so his
>meaningless diatrabe should have been expected.  I think I would still
>shove my foot up his ass if he ever said something like that to me
>within my reach.  He really is the worst kind of asshole and doesn't
>even realize he would be top on the list of "stupid people" if such a
>policy were enacted.
>
>In short, he is a total looser and he can eat my ass.

Wow.  You must be one of those Christians.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

Luna Lane wrote:
> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> assignments.
> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
> desktop alternative to Windows.
> We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
> we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
> solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
> 98 percent of the market".
> 
> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
> Or maybe that was 2003?
> How about 2012?
> 
> Luna Lane

    I can't help but say this but your prof is an idiot.  He probably 
experienced Linux in it's early days and hasn't touched it since which 
would not be a good judge.  I have used SuSE Linux now for three 
versions and each one keeps getting better and better.  True, Windows 
does have 98% of the market, but only having forced computer makers to 
sell their software by force.  I would not expect their domanence to 
maintain.  Just look at other countries that are dumping Windows and 
switching to Linux.

Noah Roberts wrote:

> 
> 
> My professor told us that the world is flat.  He warned us about
> traveling too far into the ocean or we would fall off the edge into a
> void from which there is no return.
> 

Sheesh, I hate it when you fall off the edge and can't get back again :)

Noah Roberts wrote:
>>Well, *your* god perhaps.
>>
>>But we each create our own God.
> 
> 
> _I_ am your God, bitch!
> 
GOD, can you drop it now.

John Bowling wrote:

> There are many religions who believe that they are the only true and 
> right religion, and insist on making all other religions wrong, even to 
> the point of fighting wars over it.  Many of those religions claim to be 
> Christian, but not all of them make that claim.

There are closed minds everywhere and like I said, these assholes come 
in many guises and from all camps.  I don't suppose anyone has read the 
news lately: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4107524.stm

Religion is not to blame.  This is obvious since you have someone on one 
hand professing to believe in God committing selfish and heinous acts, 
and on the other you have one who professes to not believe in god 
advocating similar acts be committed on those that do.  God has nothing 
to do with these things.  People have an unbounded capacity for evil and 
can find ample ways of justifying that evil.

> 
> I find it hard to concieve of a group that professes to love everyone 
> and is willing to kill for it.  That is absolute moral insanity!

Is it now?  Would you kill for someone you love?  Would you kill to 
protect someone you love?  Would you kill someone you love to protect 
someone you love?  I don't know about you, but I find these questions 
rather difficult to answer.  It would be nice to say, "No," but my 
reasons behind that answer are 90% selfish.  I don't even know that I 
can say I wouldn't kill someone to protect myself and when I really step 
back and look ... I do it every day and for more petty reasons.

amosf wrote:

> A religion that doesn't consider itself is the one true religion isn't
> really serious about it, is it? 

Why?

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> Wow.  You must be one of those Christians.
> 

Depends on your definition.  If by that you mean one that believes in 
Jesus's life and sayings then yes.  If you mean one that truely follows 
them then I think there have only been two that I know of in the entire 
history of the religion.  One was a Jew, the other a Hindu.

scott wrote:

>    I can't help but say this but your prof is an idiot.  He probably 
> experienced Linux in it's early days and hasn't touched it since which 
> would not be a good judge.

If even that.  There are many professors that talk crap about things 
they just don't know anything about.

Noah Roberts wrote something like:

> amosf wrote:
> 
>> A religion that doesn't consider itself is the one true religion isn't
>> really serious about it, is it?
> 
> Why?

What would be the point of it's existence? Why did it come into being? Why
to it's followers follow it rather than another? Why do they convert
others? 

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 

scott <svetter@ameritech.net> writes:

>     I can't help but say this but your prof is an idiot.  He probably 
> experienced Linux in it's early days and hasn't touched it since which 
> would not be a good judge.

More likely, the professor is fictional.  In every CS department I
have seen since, say, 1996, Linux has had a strong presence.  In some
departments, it is an overwhelming presence.  Now, there may be CS
departments out there where Linux is rare and my experiences aren't
conclusive, but this one-time post from Google Groups using a Yahoo
address smells like a troll.

-- 
Jesse F. Hughes 
"How come there's still apes running around loose and there are
humans?  Why did some of them decide to evolve and some did not?  Did
they choose to stay as a monkey or what?" -Kans. Board of Ed member

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:15:21 GMT, amosf wrote:

> Ralph wrote something like:
> 
>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> 
>>> In short, if you can't get something simple right, why include it at
>>> all?  Too weird...
>> 
>> Ever hear of dramatic license? The point I was making is that just because
>> a MAC was used in a move is NOT an endorsement of the useability of a MAC.
> 
> I have published stories and such which involve computers. You can't make it
> exactly real as a real computer because the ordinary reader just doesn't
> get it. You have to write it as they expect a computer to be from all the
> other crap they see and read... Or at least you try and find something in
> between that you can live with :)

Jurrasic Park... "Oh, it's a UNIX system!"

Umm, sure it is, kid.  Yeah, you just try to convince someone that Unix
uses that oddball fly-through system interface.

Noah Roberts wrote:

> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> 
>> Wow.  You must be one of those Christians.
>> 
> 
> Depends on your definition.  If by that you mean one that believes in
> Jesus's life and sayings then yes.  If you mean one that truely follows
> them then I think there have only been two that I know of in the entire
> history of the religion.  One was a Jew, the other a Hindu.

Since you're such an expert on "Jesus", perhaps you'd care to shed some
light on why there's never been any contemporary evidence of his existence
found.  The earliest written mention of him comes several decades after the
"fact", which means whoever wrote that, had no opportunity to witness what
he was writing about.

Jesus, as known in the bible, is a fable and nothing more.

James Knott wrote something like:

> Noah Roberts wrote:
> 
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> 
>>> Wow.  You must be one of those Christians.
>>> 
>> 
>> Depends on your definition.  If by that you mean one that believes in
>> Jesus's life and sayings then yes.  If you mean one that truely follows
>> them then I think there have only been two that I know of in the entire
>> history of the religion.  One was a Jew, the other a Hindu.
> 
> Since you're such an expert on "Jesus", perhaps you'd care to shed some
> light on why there's never been any contemporary evidence of his existence
> found.  The earliest written mention of him comes several decades after
> the "fact", which means whoever wrote that, had no opportunity to witness
> what he was writing about.
> 
> Jesus, as known in the bible, is a fable and nothing more.

Bull. Hercules was totally real.

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 

amosf <amosf@bcs4me.com> wrote:
> Christopher Browne wrote something like:
>
>> After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, beefalo <beefalo@noware.org>
>> belched out:
>>> Luna Lane wrote:
>>>> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
>>>> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
>>>> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
>>>
>>> IBM is doing no such thing... they, among many other companies, are
>>> _funding_ current Linux kernel development, but they are not nor do
>>> they have plans to rewrite the current kernel.
>>>
>>> I don't really have any info to back this up, but I'd say the onus
>>> of proof is on the prof. Or perhaps you just heard him wrong.
>> 
>> Actually, there's an IBM project that could potentially be interpreted
>> that way...
>> 
>> <http://www.research.ibm.com/K42/>
>
>
> Actually the beauty of OSS and where linux has brought us is that at any
> time someone can come up with something better and everything will just
> port across. We could all be running the new fredix overnight. 

I think that would be "Freeix"?

> Tho the kernel is not an easy thing to build apparently. Just ask
> the HURD guys...

That's more or less an example of just about nothing.

Back in the days that they considered calling it "Alix," after RMS's
girlfriend, it was imagined that the whole world was going to be using
the Mach microkernel underneath everything.  

- CMU had a *big* project going; joint venture with IBM, as usual.
- Digital sponsored building OSF/1, a Unix built atop Mach.
- NeXT built their systems atop Mach.

If that's what "everyone's doing," then finding kernel hackers to work
on free kernels atop Mach should be a no-brainer.

But then Microsoft bought out the Mach research group, putting the
head in charge of the newly-formed Microsoft Research organization.

In the aftermath of that, access to Mach code kind of disappeared for
a while, and by the time (about 2 years later) the FSF got a usable
Mach for Hurd, Mach had already been *heavily* deprecated by pretty
well everyone (other than NeXt, I suppose).

Had things been different, and Mach "survived," I think we'd see a
rather different landscape today.

It is interesting to observe that interest in Linux emerged between
two significant factors:
 - Lawsuit concerns scaring people about BSD code, and
 - Microsoft trying to get rid of Mach as competition.

In effect, Microsoft has quite a bit of responsibility in having
created a set of circumstances that left Linux being the "free *nix"
kernel that could become wildly popular.
-- 
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="gmail.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/emacs.html
"Of course 5  years from now that will be different,  but 5 years from
now  everyone  will  be  running  free  GNU on  their  200  MIPS,  64M
SPARCstation-5."  -- Andrew Tanenbaum, 1992.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:14:09 -0400, James Knott wrote:

> Since you're such an expert on "Jesus", perhaps you'd care to shed some
> light on why there's never been any contemporary evidence of his existence
> found.

Actually, as I understand it, there *were* records kept of the execution
by the Roman government (the Romans did, to their credit, keep records of
anything official). So there is evidence that a man who went around
preaching and likely doing faith healing of some sort, and stirring up
trouble and discontent, was executed by the Roman authorities. Most likely
out of concern for an uprising, as "Messiahs" were not all that uncommon
around that point in time, nor were minor Jewish uprisings against Roman
rule.


A Jewish religious nut and faith healer coming into town on a big holy day
to stir up trouble....possibly political trouble and not just the regular
run of the mill trouble....I can understand the Roman position, harsh as
it was.


Now this whole, "Son of God", religious miracles, rising from the dead
stuff....that's another fable...err...story.

James Knott wrote:
> Noah Roberts wrote:
>
> > Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> >
> >> Wow.  You must be one of those Christians.
> >>
> >
> > Depends on your definition.  If by that you mean one that believes in
> > Jesus's life and sayings then yes.  If you mean one that truely follows
> > them then I think there have only been two that I know of in the entire
> > history of the religion.  One was a Jew, the other a Hindu.
>
> Since you're such an expert on "Jesus", perhaps you'd care to shed some
> light on why there's never been any contemporary evidence of his existence
> found.  The earliest written mention of him comes several decades after the
> "fact", which means whoever wrote that, had no opportunity to witness what
> he was writing about.
>
> Jesus, as known in the bible, is a fable and nothing more.

You already proved a long time ago that you are not worth talking to.
Your religious trolling does nothing to reverse that.  If you can't
handle people having different religions than you that is your loss.
This is not the place for your hate venting.  I am not going to get
into this with you again.

Noah Roberts wrote:
> 
> James Knott wrote:
> 
>>Noah Roberts wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Wow.  You must be one of those Christians.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Depends on your definition.  If by that you mean one that believes in
>>>Jesus's life and sayings then yes.  If you mean one that truely follows
>>>them then I think there have only been two that I know of in the entire
>>>history of the religion.  One was a Jew, the other a Hindu.
>>
>>Since you're such an expert on "Jesus", perhaps you'd care to shed some
>>light on why there's never been any contemporary evidence of his existence
>>found.  The earliest written mention of him comes several decades after the
>>"fact", which means whoever wrote that, had no opportunity to witness what
>>he was writing about.
>>
>>Jesus, as known in the bible, is a fable and nothing more.
> 
> 
> You already proved a long time ago that you are not worth talking to.
> Your religious trolling does nothing to reverse that.  If you can't
> handle people having different religions than you that is your loss.
> This is not the place for your hate venting.  I am not going to get
> into this with you again.
> 


There is only one true religion, though it's impossible to know
whether it's Linuxism, BSDism or SysVism.  Some extremely deluded folks 
once thought it was McBridism but that's generally considered to have 
been falsified.  So you have a one in three shot at salvation.

The problem is, if you guess wrong, you are doomed to spend eternity 
crawling through the Mines of Misery with a Tandy Model 100 computer as 
your only companion.  The Gods of *ix are jealous gods and won't stand 
for competition and false idolatry.

The only certain thing is that the Microsoft guys are screwed.  If you 
worship at the altar of Linux, you may end up pecking at the Model 100's 
keys while the stench of Unicorn dung fills your nostrils, but at least 
you have a shot at your own Camel Beast and all the other perks that go 
along with having chosen the Right Religion.

My feeling is to embrace 'em all and believe in nothing.  You might call 
me a Secular Posixist.  I'm typing at an iBook keyboard, have
one terminal window open to a Linux website I run, and another to
my BSD based site.  May the gods have mercy on my soul, but I still have 
some SCO customers here and there (though I've moved more than
a few to Linux).

Who cares what some P-thing (Pastor or Professor) thinks?  Linux
is not real Unix, but Unix isn't real Linux either.  Think for
yourself - it may seem strange at first, but it's habit forming.
Just imagine making up your own mind about something.. I know, it's
scary taking responsibility for your own opinions.  When you do
that, you can't say "God says I have to hate gays" or "My professor
says I shouldn't use Linux".  Nope, you'll have to take full
responsibility for your own opinions.   I don't mean that you have
responsibility to other people necessarily; primarily your
responsibility is to yourself.  You are the captain of your ship
and shouldn't be letting other people tell you how to trim the
sails.  Sure, you'll listen to the tales of those with more experience,
but remember that ultimately it's your course to chart, not theirs.

So give the Professor a big old smile and agree wholeheartedly:

Yessiree, Linux is not real Unix.  And so?



-- 
Tony Lawrence
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X  resources: http://aplawrence.com

Luna Lane wrote:
> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> assignments.

OK.  Here is the first problem.  Does your lab have a bunch of high-end
SparcStations?  Very hard to go back to a Honda Civic after you've been
driving a Lincoln Continental for a few years.  Hey, if you have the
bucks to spring for a SparcStation, complete with 24 inch monitor and 4
megapixel resolution, more power to you.  I had one, I loved it.
Compared to that, Linux is a bit weak.  After all, when you have
1600x1200 or even 4096x3072 resolution, on a monitor the size of most
big screen home theaters, Linux on a 1024x762 screen is just a bit of a
letdown.  The problem of course, is that those SparcStations cost about
5 times more that a comparably configured PC (with standard lower
resolution monitor), you also can't get Solaris on a SparC powered
laptop.

Sun has been a bit confusing about their Intel/AMD strategy.  I'd love
nothing better than to see Sun go for Microsoft's Jugguler and start
putting Solaris on industry standard PCs.  That would be exciting.  The
problem is that Sun wants to make hardware as well as software, and the
OEMs are all a bit reluctant to sign their futures over to someone who
might decide to cut out the OEM market entirely.  If Microsoft started
making PCs, or even Jazzed up X-Boxes, they would probably be jumping
ship for Linux the next day.

> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.

Again, one is comparing Sun Solaris, which has some great commercial
support and has been well supported by vendors seeking to cater to
corporate IT server envinonments, who don't even flinch when the price
tag for a software bundle exceeds $5 million for a system that serves
10,000 users, customers, or prospective customers.

Linux is starting to see lots more support from commercial software
vendors.  For example, IBM no offers some excellent packages on Linux
including WebSphere, WebSphere MQ, WebSphere Message Broker, Tivoli
products, Lotus Workgroup solutions, and other high solutions.  Of
course, these products aren't cheap either, and very often, Linux on
Intel is used for Prototyping and then the solution is migrated to
Solaris, AIX, HP_UX, or Linux on Z-Series.

Solaris shops are justifiably a bit snobbish as to "real computers".
They have a proud tradition of having some of the best UNIX support in
the Industry, and there are plenty of very capable Solaris
administrators who know how to support the Sun administration tools.

> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.

Actually, IBM contributed a few hundred lines of code to help solve the
problem of spinlocks between processors on multiprocessor SMP and NuMA
environments.  Linus had been using a simple semaphore to lock a large
block of shared memory and kept the semaphore locked for the duration
of the operation.  IBM offered a technique they had used in MVS, CICS,
OS/400, and AIX which used the semaphore to lock the memory just long
enough to allocate space for a message on a message queue.  Message
queues are ancient, but IBM's rather simple solution meant that each
processor could pull a request off the queue as needed, rather than
having to lock all of the memory for substantial periods of time.  This
reduced the "bottleneck time" from as high as 30% of the duty cycle to
less than 1/100th of 1% of the duty cycle.

There are hundreds of people working on different aspects of the
kernel, but most of this work is focused on new drivers, plugging
security holes, and/or balancing the
performance/stability/reliability/security requirements against the
needs of Servers, Desktops, and Laptops.

> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
> desktop alternative to Windows.

Sun had it's chance back in 1991.  They had nearly 15% of the corporate
desktop market.  Specifically, Sun SparcStations were being used for
CAD/CAM, Financial Analysis, System Management, and Project Management.
 Sun had a really awsome project management tool, and an even better
tool for monitoring any type of statistics in near-real time and
displaying the information in useful and meaningful ways.

Sun even tried to come out with an 80386 solution, but could not keep
up with the permutations and combinations of ISA, EISA, MC, VESA, VLB,
and PCI cards that seemed to flood the market, with new versions being
introduced nearly every week.  By the time they got their 80386 machine
to market, Microsoft and the MS-DOS/Windows OEMs had already moved on
to the 80486 market.

When Sun captured the attenion of a CES show, and completely stole the
spotlight from Windows 3.1, Bill Gates announced Windows NT, based
almost entirely on notes from the presentations made by Sun.

> We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
> we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
> solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.

Apple has had several chances to blow Microsoft out of the water, but
Steve Jobs isn't really interested in a "Mass Market" PC.  Mac users
are more Artistic.  Apple targets the marketing and advertizing
departments of most corporations, and these users have been fiercely
loyal to Apple, for good reason.  OS/X is really great, and shows how
easy it is to have a system that runs UNIX without having to learn all
about command line programming.  At the same time, it takes no effort
at all to get to the shell windows, and you still have most of the
power of UNIX available for "under the covers" applications.

> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
> 98 percent of the market".

It's a popular phrase.  Yes, Linux can be downloaded from the network
for free, but it's not pre-installed on the desktop machine or laptop
machine.  If I want to install Linux on a new laptop that I've never
seen before, I have to find out if it's even supported by Linux.  If it
is, which hardware settings need to be set?  Will Linux PnP figure it
out, or will I have to do modprobes, or will I have to manually
configure a file, or will I have to write a shell script to run a bunch
of commands to get all of the features out of the wireless card?

Time is money.  It's cheaper to order that WalMart Special than to try
and convert a machine that the OEM has forged to Microsoft's
specifications, specifications which are often DESIGNED to exclude
Linux.  In many cases, Microsoft even uses legally binding contracts to
prevent ports to Linux.

The OEMs have repeatedly tried to rebel, but doing so can effectively
double, or even triple the cost of the OEM Microsoft licenses, and
since the Microsoft OEM licenses represent the most expensive single
component on the machine, more than the hard drive or the CPU, that is
a huge expense.  Margins on Microsoft PCs are extremely thin, and most
of the time, Windows PCs are actually sold at a loss.  The only profit
usually involves the Tie-Ins, like a printer, monitor, speakers, or
On-line service package included in a "package".

> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?

Much of that will be decided in the next 30 days.  If the OEMs sign
another round of agreements that give Microsoft complete control over
the hardware and software installed in the machine, that prevent the
OEMs from adding their own boot managers, supplimentary software, and
other product differentiating features that would enable them to
install Linux and increase the retail price and profit margins for the
machines, then we might have to wait another year to see Linux on a
retailer shelf.

If the OEMs agree to let Microsoft control placement of ads, and allow
Microsoft to pull adds for Dell, HP, and Gateway PCs from any
publication who provides unfavorable coverage of Windows and Linux,
coverage which show the areas where Linux is superior, or even "as good
as" Windows, then we will have to wait another year before we see any
sort of unbiased press coverage of Linux.

If the OEMs agree to let Microsoft prevent the use of any competitor's
logos on any packaging, advertizing, web pages, or any other place
where the MicroSoft trademarks and logos appear, it will continue to be
nearly impossible to tell which machines are "Linux Friendly" and which
are "Linux Hostile".  Of course, this will make it impossible for OEMs
to see whether "Linux Friendly" sells better than "Linux Hostile".

> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?

Actually, 1999 was a really good year.  Red Hat went Public, Corel
provided OEMs with licenses for Linux for every motherboard they used,
and SuSE was making huge gains in Germany, especially in banking and
government.  Mandrake was also doing really well.  Most PCs were at
least somewhat Linux compatible, and the DOJ was watching Microsoft
like a hawk, ready to use any misbehavior as justification for a forced
divestature.  But then again, the Linux vendors didn't want to come on
too strong, or they might remove the justification for the antitrust
action in the first place.  They did everything they could to stay
under the radar.  Browsers signed to servers as "Other" including such
generic terms as "X11/Mozilla" or "UNIX/X11", with enough deviations
and similarities to signatures used by Solaris, AIX, and other
machines, to make sure that Microsoft could not claim that Linux had so
much market that they didn't have a monopoly.

But of course, the administrations changed, and the 6th Attorney
General since Ewin Meese under the Reagan Administration figured that
he could out-bargain and out-lawyer Microsoft.  This is a lesson that
Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush-II all learned the hard way.  The only
way to handle Microsoft is to dictate the terms, if they bring in their
weasel-worded language, they can make this mean anything they want.
Even Judge Kollar-Kotelli is disgusted with the way the settlement has
been twisted and redefined by Microsoft since they first proposed it so
long ago.

> Or maybe that was 2003?

You mean when Bush and Ashcroft decided to look the other way as
Microsoft not only ignored the judgement they had negotiated, but
proceeded to extend and expand their monopolies to other markets,
including Media, Games, Music, and Video?   You mean when Bush decided
to let Bill Gates pay himself $5 billion tax-free by eliminating the
tax on Dividends?

No.  That wasn't a great year for Linux.  Still, the Linux market in
Japan was nearly 30% of the licenses for PCs.  Turbo Linux and Red Flag
linux were doing extremely well in China, so well that Microsoft
offered to sell Windows for the equivalent of 75 cents/copy.

The good news is that Linux was so successful, that Billy decided to
start giving away some of his billions to combat AIDs, Polio, and many
curable and preventable diseases that were killing millions of innocent
children every year.  These acts of generousity may not have been
directly tied to exclusion of Linux, but it certainly made many markets
more receptive to Windows.

> How about 2012?

2007 might be a good year.  Mid-term elections are coming up, and there
are lots of politicians who will be looking for ways to win votes.
Microsoft is always a good political football, because so many people
really hate windows deep down, but simply don't have the choice.

> Luna Lane

Next time your professor uses the "Windows has 98% of the market",
point out to him that most End-Users did not make the choice as to
which OS was installed on their machine by the OEM.  Most end-users did
not make the choice as to which OS was installed on their office
machine by their IT Department.  Most end-users do not have the choice
of having the company install a Mac on their desktop, or a Solaris
Workstation on their desktop, and most companies will not be providing
Apple Laptops.

You might also point out that most people using Windows on their
desktop, but they spend about 90% of their time interacting with UNIX
and Linux systems, including e-mail, web servers, routers, firewalls,
databases, and most of the other "Real Work" that gets done.

You might also point out that about 98% of the functions currently
provided by Windows can also be provided by Linux, and the remaining 2%
could probably be replaced by something better anyway.

The professor is making the same argument you will get at most
corporate environments.  Billy made $400 billion, so he must know what
he's doing, and you don't.  You might point out that Al Capone was the
richest man in the 1930's, but that doesn't mean that he should be the
most respected man of the time.  The local drug dealer makes more than
most accountants, but that doesn't mean that he's the best candidate as
a father or decision maker for your company.

Microsoft has been found by several judges to have engaged in unlawful
acts which were partly responsible for the financial success of
Microsoft.  In most cases, Microsoft has avoided criminal and civil
penalties by quickly entering into negotiated settlements - plea
bargains.  If the local drug pusher gets a good deal in a plea bargain
- does that mean you want him dating your daughter?

r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote:
>Luna Lane wrote:
>> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
>> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
>> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
>> assignments.
>
>OK.  Here is the first problem.  Does your lab have a bunch of high-end

The *first* problem is that you are responding to a troll.  He
is not a CS student, there is no "prof", and everything he said
was fabricated with the intent of suckering fools to comment.

>SparcStations?  Very hard to go back to a Honda Civic after you've been
>driving a Lincoln Continental for a few years.  Hey, if you have the
>bucks to spring for a SparcStation, complete with 24 inch monitor and 4
>megapixel resolution, more power to you.  I had one, I loved it.

Well, that is wonderful.  I like great *hardware* too.  What's that
got to do with Linux?

>Compared to that, Linux is a bit weak.

How do you compare hardware with an Operating System?

You do realize that Linux will run on that hardware, right?

>After all, when you have
>1600x1200 or even 4096x3072 resolution, on a monitor the size of most
>big screen home theaters, Linux on a 1024x762 screen is just a bit of a
>letdown.

Then don't run Linux on a 1024x762 screen.  Get a 4096x3072
screen.  Linux handles that just a easily.

>The problem of course, is that those SparcStations cost about
>5 times more that a comparably configured PC (with standard lower
>resolution monitor), you also can't get Solaris on a SparC powered
>laptop.

The problem is that *you aren't making any sense at all*.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

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

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:46:41 +0200,
 Somebody <notgood@all.au> wrote:
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>Noah Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>My professor told us that the world is flat.  He warned us about
>>>>traveling too far into the ocean or we would fall off the edge into a
>>>>void from which there is no return.
>>>
>>>And there are even some who believe in "God".  It's amazing the stupid
>>>things that some people believe.
>> 
>> 
>> Amazing, but not really a silly thing to believe.  What's
>> absolutely silly is the idea that She would have created man in
>> her image.
>> 
>> (In fact, the Creater gave Raven the responsibility of putting
>> all this together, and we probably don't want to know what She
>> actually looks like.  My suspicians are that She would be a
>> medium size seal point Siamese though...)
>> 
> God can't be a 'she', as he was the father of Jesus.


so it would be impossible for god to be a she?

how... limiting. So much for omnipotence. Apparantly, in your mind, god
is incapable of actions that roughly half of the human race can do. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCxDsbd90bcYOAWPYRAlEpAKDv8pTddhjdGGMJmTpTF8VuMfbYQgCg0SJa
0bEhmq6qrGtnmqJ7CLC2SME=
=4KL9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I never believe anything until it's been officially denied.

It's not 'real UNIX' - but it doesn't suck ... at least
no more than 'real UNIX'.  

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:07:04 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) Gave us:

>Well, that is wonderful.  I like great *hardware* too.  What's that
>got to do with Linux?

  Did you even read the thread, or his post, Floyd?  Jeez.
Sometimes I think that you are worse than John, and his spell
checking.

  His response is the most concise of any that have been made in the
thread, regardless of YOUR opinion as to the nature of its source or
intended cause.

In article <luOdnY04pMfpxV7fRVn-rw@rogers.com>,
James Knott  <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>Noah Roberts wrote:
>
>> Someone that attacks another person's
>> religious beliefs like that for no reason at all deserves no respect.
>
>The delusion called "religion" deserves no respect.  It's a fantasy.

That's just one more opinion, not necessarily better or worse than a religious 
person's opinion.

>> I think I would still
>> shove my foot up his ass if he ever said something like that to me
>> within my reach. 
>
>I guess this is what they teach in sunday school these days.
>
>

Jim Richardson wrote:
>>God can't be a 'she', as he was the father of Jesus.
> 
> 
> so it would be impossible for god to be a she?
> 
> how... limiting. So much for omnipotence. Apparantly, in your mind, god
> is incapable of actions that roughly half of the human race can do. 
> 

With a Gay mariage everything is possible... even to have 2 mothers or 2 
fathers...

"Patrick Grimbergen" <patrick@grimweb.info> wrote in message 
news:42c47601$0$39345$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>God can't be a 'she', as he was the father of Jesus.
>>
>>
>> so it would be impossible for god to be a she?
>>
>> how... limiting. So much for omnipotence. Apparantly, in your mind, god
>> is incapable of actions that roughly half of the human race can do.
>
> With a Gay mariage everything is possible... even to have 2 mothers or 2 
> fathers...


It's possible to have two "legal guardians" but it is not possible to have 
two "biological" mothers or fathers.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:54:55 -0400, "Larry Qualig"
<removethispartlqualig@uku.co.uk> Gave us:

>
>"Patrick Grimbergen" <patrick@grimweb.info> wrote in message 
>news:42c47601$0$39345$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>>God can't be a 'she', as he was the father of Jesus.
>>>
>>>
>>> so it would be impossible for god to be a she?
>>>
>>> how... limiting. So much for omnipotence. Apparantly, in your mind, god
>>> is incapable of actions that roughly half of the human race can do.
>>
>> With a Gay mariage everything is possible... even to have 2 mothers or 2 
>> fathers...
>
>
>It's possible to have two "legal guardians" but it is not possible to have 
>two "biological" mothers or fathers.
>
>
  What? You mean that you haven't heard of the newer "split chromo
fusion clones"..

  Where have you been, man!?  Bwuahahahaha....

"Larry Qualig" <removethispartlqualig@uku.co.uk> writes:


>"Patrick Grimbergen" <patrick@grimweb.info> wrote in message 
>news:42c47601$0$39345$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>>God can't be a 'she', as he was the father of Jesus.
>>>
>>>
>>> so it would be impossible for god to be a she?
>>>
>>> how... limiting. So much for omnipotence. Apparantly, in your mind, god
>>> is incapable of actions that roughly half of the human race can do.
>>
>> With a Gay mariage everything is possible... even to have 2 mothers or 2 
>> fathers...


>It's possible to have two "legal guardians" but it is not possible to have 
>two "biological" mothers or fathers.

Well, not clear. With cloning I could well imagine removing the dna from
one woman's egg and inserting it into another, or inserting it into a sperm
and then that sperm into the other egg. 
And if a kid is adopted, is its mother and father the adopted parents or
the biological. Remember Jesus called God father, not "the doner of the
sperm which resulted in my existence", or even "my biological father".
In fact an argument could be made that God adopted him-- he was after all
fully human.

Luna Lane wrote:
> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> assignments.
....
> Luna Lane

Hi, do you know how to filter out cross-posting trolls?

I'm using Mozilla Thunderbird.

begin  In <1120153472.587284.46550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, on
06/30/2005
   at 10:44 AM, r.e.ballard@usa.net said:

>It's a popular phrase.  Yes, Linux can be downloaded from the network
>for free, but it's not pre-installed on the desktop machine or laptop
>machine. 

Perhaps not from the likes of Dull, but my daughter bought a machine
with Linux preloaded years ago, and the service from Pogo has been
excellent.


>then we might have to wait another year to see Linux on a retailer
>shelf.

We might have to wait to see preloaded systems on the retailer
shelves, but Microcenter has displayed and sold multiple Linux
distributions for years, and they're far from the only ones.

>Next time your professor 

He probably doesn't exist. YHBT. 

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Jim Richardson wrote:

>> God can't be a 'she', as he was the father of Jesus.
> 
> 
> so it would be impossible for god to be a she?
> 
> how... limiting. So much for omnipotence. Apparantly, in your mind, god
> is incapable of actions that roughly half of the human race can do.
> 

Imagine what all the bible thumpers would make of that.  They'd harass
him/her/it, for being gay or bisexual or...

begin  In <egHwe.1145$aY6.354@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, on
06/30/2005
   at 12:44 AM, jpeg@hotmail.invalid said:

>If you could find your own asshole without assistance, I'd be
>surprised.

You don't think that she/he/it has access to a mirror?

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Liam Slider wrote:

> Actually, as I understand it, there were records kept of the execution
> by the Roman government (the Romans did, to their credit, keep records of
> anything official). So there is evidence that a man who went around
> preaching and likely doing faith healing of some sort, and stirring up
> trouble and discontent, was executed by the Roman authorities.

According to what I read, there was no record of it.

James Knott wrote:


> Since you're such an expert on "Jesus", perhaps you'd care to shed some
> light on why there's never been any contemporary evidence of his existence
> found.  The earliest written mention of him comes several decades after
> the "fact", which means whoever wrote that, had no opportunity to witness
> what he was writing about.


Well writing something about a guy who was crucified by the Roman Empire
would probably not have been a good idea.

In a way, it would be like being a Linux Advocate in 1995.

However, years later, when the Roman elite started adopting Christianity, it
became acceptable to write about, and even, iconize, Jesus.

In the same way that Linux has now made inroads into the power structure of
the American Empire.


> 
> Jesus, as known in the bible, is a fable and nothing more.

-- 
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com

Noah Roberts wrote:

> If you can't
> handle people having different religions than you that is your loss.

I suggest you first look up the definition of "religion" and try again.  I
do not have religion, as religion is a belief or faith in supernatural
beings etc.  I totally reject *ALL* that nonsense, no matter what deity,
fable, fairy tales etc.  Christianity and all the other religions are no
more real than fairy tails.  Why are so many religious people, no matter
what their faith, so determined that they are right and other's with
different beliefs wrong?  Why are so many of them so ready to resort to
violence to prove the point?   This world would be far better off without
religion!!!!  Please take a look around the world and throughout history at
all the people murdered in "god's" name and then tell me again about how
great religion is.  If you want to see how stupid some people can be, WRT
religion, check out the recent news story about the baptist minister who
was recently convicted of murdering three civil rights workers in
Mississippi, back in 1964.  He claim at one point he was doing "god's
work".  He also got off in an earlier murder trial, simply because one
member of the jury could never convict a preacher!!!  What kind of nonsense
is that?

These problems and many, many more occur because people use their delusion,
called religion, to justify harming others.

Noah Roberts wrote:
> John Bowling wrote:
> 
>> There are many religions who believe that they are the only true and 
>> right religion, and insist on making all other religions wrong, even 
>> to the point of fighting wars over it.  Many of those religions claim 
>> to be Christian, but not all of them make that claim.
> 
> 
> There are closed minds everywhere and like I said, these assholes come 
> in many guises and from all camps.  I don't suppose anyone has read the 
> news lately: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4107524.stm
> 
> Religion is not to blame.  This is obvious since you have someone on one 
> hand professing to believe in God committing selfish and heinous acts, 
> and on the other you have one who professes to not believe in god 
> advocating similar acts be committed on those that do.  God has nothing 
> to do with these things.  People have an unbounded capacity for evil and 
> can find ample ways of justifying that evil.
> 
>>
>> I find it hard to concieve of a group that professes to love everyone 
>> and is willing to kill for it.  That is absolute moral insanity!
> 
> 
> Is it now?  Would you kill for someone you love?  Would you kill to 
> protect someone you love?  Would you kill someone you love to protect 
> someone you love?  I don't know about you, but I find these questions 
> rather difficult to answer.  It would be nice to say, "No," but my 
> reasons behind that answer are 90% selfish.  I don't even know that I 
> can say I wouldn't kill someone to protect myself and when I really step 
> back and look ... I do it every day and for more petty reasons.
Good grif !

So many posts for nothing. I skipped the entire subject of religion 
decades ago, after realizing how many people was killed in the name of 
God, and to this day still is. If there is a God, he is either solidly 
asleep, incompetent at the job, og an evil man. Look at the World for 
yourself. Everywhere people are killing each other for a thing that has 
never been proved.
I do however admit that western society is based on the theories of the 
new testament, which in my eyes is a historical document.

EOD from my side.

Anyway, Linux IS a good system, and yes - it is NOT unix.

Somebody wrote:

> So many posts for nothing. I skipped the entire subject of religion 
> decades ago, after realizing how many people was killed in the name of 
> God, and to this day still is.

It is easy to look at only the bad of things.  People have also been 
inspired by their religion to do great and wonderful things.

  If there is a God, he is either solidly
> asleep, incompetent at the job, og an evil man. Look at the World for 
> yourself.

As far as human society goes, we have made the world what it is. 
Freedom comes with a price, and that price is responsibility.  Would you 
really want God to step in and force us all to do what he/she/it/they 
wanted?

  Everywhere people are killing each other for a thing that has
> never been proved.

What, you mean WMD's?  Since when do people need a proven reason to kill 
each other?

As far as God being proven, well that is just a question of who does it 
need to be proven to.  In my case I have all the proof I need.

> I do however admit that western society is based on the theories of the 
> new testament, which in my eyes is a historical document.

Interesting.  In what ways would you say western society is based on the 
new testament?  I can see the Old, but the new...I would be interested 
in your interpretation.

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
> 
>> So many posts for nothing. I skipped the entire subject of religion 
>> decades ago, after realizing how many people was killed in the name of 
>> God, and to this day still is.
> 
> 
> It is easy to look at only the bad of things.  People have also been 
> inspired by their religion to do great and wonderful things.

Indeed.  And we hope that the good at least balances off the bad.  That 
may be wrong, but we can hope.


> 
> As far as God being proven, well that is just a question of who does it 
> need to be proven to.  In my case I have all the proof I need.

I'm a life long atheist - first realized that other people had these 
beliefs when I was seven; before that I thought all this "god" stuff was 
no different then Winnie the Pooh.


> 
>> I do however admit that western society is based on the theories of 
>> the new testament, which in my eyes is a historical document.
> 
> 
> Interesting.  In what ways would you say western society is based on the 
> new testament?  I can see the Old, but the new...I would be interested 
> in your interpretation.

It doesn't bother me that society is based on religion.  It only bothers 
me when people refuse to examine those origins and consider changes.


-- 
Tony Lawrence
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X  resources: http://aplawrence.com

Tenure evidently turns a lot of people into fuckwits.

Hanuman wrote:
> Tenure evidently turns a lot of people into fuckwits.

Your 2nd post back and you resort to "fuckwit"?

You really are a Linux nut.

Noah Roberts wrote:

> As far as human society goes, we have made the world what it is.

Including the concept of a devine being.

> As far as God being proven, well that is just a question of who does it 
> need to be proven to.  In my case I have all the proof I need.

Such as???

poor, poor Luna Lane . . .

if "she'd" ever knew, what she was doing

she'd never call ZEUS not knowing how to get rid of em . . .

poor, poor Luna Lane . . .

On 1 Jul 2005 12:13:43 -0700, "Hanuman" <hanumizzle@yahoo.com> Gave
us:

>Tenure evidently turns a lot of people into fuckwits.

  Look how many idiots enter Usenet, and make posts without knowing a
damned thing about conformance to posting protocols, then, they claim
to be intelligent.  Throw your gum on the sidewalk to, eh?

 Idiot.  Without quoting the post (that portion of the post)you are
jacking off at the mouth about, you are JAUR (Just Another Usenet
Retard).

 You are a JUAR head.

James Knott wrote something like:

> Liam Slider wrote:
> 
>> Actually, as I understand it, there were records kept of the execution
>> by the Roman government (the Romans did, to their credit, keep records of
>> anything official). So there is evidence that a man who went around
>> preaching and likely doing faith healing of some sort, and stirring up
>> trouble and discontent, was executed by the Roman authorities.
> 
> According to what I read, there was no record of it.

No records of a roman crucifixion of 'jesus' at the time exist to my
knowlege. 

Only records are from josephus, again after the fact (62CE) - and possibly
doctored even later in history... But a very short record by a hebrew
historian working for rome, right? 


 Josephus' Testimony to Jesus
(Testimonium Flavianum)
Josephus, Antiquities 18. 63-64


The words in ALL CAPS are likely interpolations added by Christian copyists
over the centuries in an attempt to make Josephus support faith in Jesus as
the Christ. We have only three Greek manuscripts of this section of
Josephus, all from the 11th century. These phrases, added rather clumsily,
appear to be rather obvious additions even to the modern reader in English.
Once restored to its more original reading Josephus offers us a most
fascinating reference to Jesus. Indeed, it is the earliest reference to
Jesus outside the New Testament, and its rather matter of fact, neutral
reporting, makes it all the more valuable to the historian. It is worth
noting that in his earlier work, The Jewish War, written shortly after the
revolt under the auspices of the Emperor Vespasian, he mentioned neither
Jesus, nor John the Baptist, nor James, while in Antiquities, written in
the early 90s C.E., he mentions all three. For an excellent discussion of
this text see John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus
(Doubleday, 1991), Vol I, pp. 57-88.

    Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL
HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE
THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE
GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the
principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved
him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN
THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND
OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named
from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).

Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an
Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated
in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West:

    At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct
was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the
Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be
crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not
abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them
three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they
believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have
recounted wonders.

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 

r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote:

> It's a popular phrase.  Yes, Linux can be downloaded from the network
> for free, but it's not pre-installed on the desktop machine or laptop
> machine.

There are some smaller companies, that sell computers loaded with Linux. 
For example, Angel Computers <http://www.angelcomputer.com/> sells notebook
computers with Linux or no OS, for less than the price of the same
computer, loaded with Windows.  Also, Walmart in the U.S. sells Linux
computers.

amosf wrote:

>> According to what I read, there was no record of it.
> 
> No records of a roman crucifixion of 'jesus' at the time exist to my
> knowlege.
> 
> Only records are from josephus, again after the fact (62CE) - and possibly
> doctored even later in history... But a very short record by a hebrew
> historian working for rome, right?

That's a big problem with the biblical account of Christ.  There's
absolutely no record of him, prior to several decades after events
supposedly happened.  Perhaps a bit of revisionist history in the making
there?  A bit of embellishment?  Pure fiction?

One thing you can be certain of, anyone writing those accounts that have
been found is extremely unlikely to have ever met such a person or
witnessed those events.

James Knott wrote:
> amosf wrote:
>
> >> According to what I read, there was no record of it.
> >
> > No records of a roman crucifixion of 'jesus' at the time exist to my
> > knowlege.
> >
> > Only records are from josephus, again after the fact (62CE) - and possibly
> > doctored even later in history... But a very short record by a hebrew
> > historian working for rome, right?
>
> That's a big problem with the biblical account of Christ.  There's
> absolutely no record of him, prior to several decades after events
> supposedly happened.  Perhaps a bit of revisionist history in the making
> there?  A bit of embellishment?  Pure fiction?
>
> One thing you can be certain of, anyone writing those accounts that have
> been found is extremely unlikely to have ever met such a person or
> witnessed those events.

One problem with usenet is that ignorance can infect even intelligent
people.  Our knowledge of Jesus does not come from Josephus! -- he
merely happens to confirm in general terms what we knew already.  We
get our knowledge from the New Testament, which those who knew the
authors tell us was written by people who knew Jesus and their
associates.  Nor is this in a vaccuum, since the man founded an
organisation which has left some 5000 pages of writing in the first 3
centuries alone.

There are people out there who try to find excuses to ignore all this.
The majority of these don't have any idea what sort of evidence we
usually have for ancient events and history.  Instead they work out
what sort of criteria the evidence will not pass, and demand that.
That these standards would dispose of all historical record prior to
around 1300 is, of course, not something they are concerned about at
all.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

begin  risky.vbs
	<1120319280.957613.34300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
	roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk writes:
> James Knott wrote:
>> amosf wrote:
>>
>> >> According to what I read, there was no record of it.
>> >
>> > No records of a roman crucifixion of 'jesus' at the time exist to my
>> > knowlege.
>> >
>> > Only records are from josephus, again after the fact (62CE) - and possibly
>> > doctored even later in history... But a very short record by a hebrew
>> > historian working for rome, right?
>>
>> That's a big problem with the biblical account of Christ.  There's
>> absolutely no record of him, prior to several decades after events
>> supposedly happened.  Perhaps a bit of revisionist history in the making
>> there?  A bit of embellishment?  Pure fiction?
>>
>> One thing you can be certain of, anyone writing those accounts that have
>> been found is extremely unlikely to have ever met such a person or
>> witnessed those events.
> 
> One problem with usenet is that ignorance can infect even intelligent
> people.  Our knowledge of Jesus does not come from Josephus! -- he
> merely happens to confirm in general terms what we knew already.  We
> get our knowledge from the New Testament, which those who knew the
> authors tell us was written by people who knew Jesus and their
> associates.  Nor is this in a vaccuum, since the man founded an
> organisation which has left some 5000 pages of writing in the first 3
> centuries alone.

Can you explain to me how a man who supposedly performed miracles,
preached to the multitude, pissed of the established religious
hierarchy, had to be brought before the romans to have him 'legally'
executed and supposedly rose from the dead and yet not a single
written word by his contemporaries exists? All we have is stories
written about this man decades after his death.

The only rational conclusion anyone can have is that Jesus, as depicted
in the NT, never existed.

Noah Roberts wrote:

> 
> As far as human society goes, we have made the world what it is. Freedom 
> comes with a price, and that price is responsibility.  Would you really 
> want God to step in and force us all to do what he/she/it/they wanted?

Would you have a choice if he did step in ?  That is if there really is 
such a person or enity!

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Luna Lane wrote: 
>Bull shit.

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote something like:

> James Knott wrote:
>> amosf wrote:
>>
>> >> According to what I read, there was no record of it.
>> >
>> > No records of a roman crucifixion of 'jesus' at the time exist to my
>> > knowlege.
>> >
>> > Only records are from josephus, again after the fact (62CE) - and
>> > possibly doctored even later in history... But a very short record by a
>> > hebrew historian working for rome, right?
>>
>> That's a big problem with the biblical account of Christ.  There's
>> absolutely no record of him, prior to several decades after events
>> supposedly happened.  Perhaps a bit of revisionist history in the making
>> there?  A bit of embellishment?  Pure fiction?
>>
>> One thing you can be certain of, anyone writing those accounts that have
>> been found is extremely unlikely to have ever met such a person or
>> witnessed those events.
> 
> One problem with usenet is that ignorance can infect even intelligent
> people.  Our knowledge of Jesus does not come from Josephus! -- he
> merely happens to confirm in general terms what we knew already.  We
> get our knowledge from the New Testament, which those who knew the
> authors tell us was written by people who knew Jesus and their
> associates.  Nor is this in a vaccuum, since the man founded an
> organisation which has left some 5000 pages of writing in the first 3
> centuries alone.

'jesus' founded nothing and wrote nothing. Later texts were written about
him by a cult founded by others. 

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:16:44 -0300, "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
<spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>begin  In <1120153472.587284.46550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, on
>06/30/2005
>   at 10:44 AM, r.e.ballard@usa.net said:

>>It's a popular phrase.  Yes, Linux can be downloaded from the network
>>for free, but it's not pre-installed on the desktop machine or laptop
>>machine. 

>Perhaps not from the likes of Dull, but my daughter bought a machine
>with Linux preloaded years ago, and the service from Pogo has been
>excellent.

Also try typing  walmart linux  into google and see all of the
pre-loaded machines that appear.


>>then we might have to wait another year to see Linux on a retailer
>>shelf.

>We might have to wait to see preloaded systems on the retailer
>shelves, but Microcenter has displayed and sold multiple Linux
>distributions for years, and they're far from the only ones.

Mandriva is another company that sells Linux distros off the shelf.


>>Next time your professor 

>He probably doesn't exist. YHBT. 

He's probably one of those professors that thinks he knows everything
but doesn't.  The trouble is that if a student tells the truth, the
prof tells him to shutup, fails him or kicks him out of his class.  So
much for academic honesty and keeping up to date with the facts.


Sig:
I do not fear computers.  I fear the lack of them.
  -- Isaac Asimov

on June 30 09:45 am Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> More likely, the professor is fictional.  In every CS department I 
> have seen since, say, 1996, Linux has had a strong presence.  In some
>  departments, it is an overwhelming presence.

> Now, there may be CS departments out there where Linux is rare and my
>  experiences aren't conclusive, but this one-time post from Google 
> Groups using a Yahoo address smells like a troll.

Not only is the professor fictional but so is Miz Whoppet. How many
students do you know that have the same name as a porn star. Wouldn't
that have been the dead qiveaway. Who is it that's in the habit of
posting fictional aliases composed of body parts. Stinks a lot more than
just another troll if you ask me.

160 replys not counting this one. Yet more legitimate subjects get
ignored. Makes one wonder.

I'm sorry if I offend you but don't you and all the other one hundered
and sixty posters not recognize when someone is taking the piss
out of you?

http://www.pornstargals.com/gals/lunalane0.php

-- 

"If you tape a piece of buttered bread to the back of a cat butter side
up and drop the cat, which will hit the ground, the cats feet or the
buttered side of the bread? ...

Neither the assembly will reach an elevation of one foot from the ground
and start to spin uncontrollably, perpetual motion."

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> One problem with usenet is that ignorance can infect even intelligent
> people.  Our knowledge of Jesus does not come from Josephus! -- he
> merely happens to confirm in general terms what we knew already.  We
> get our knowledge from the New Testament, which those who knew the
> authors tell us was written by people who knew Jesus and their
> associates.  Nor is this in a vaccuum, since the man founded an
> organisation which has left some 5000 pages of writing in the first 3
> centuries alone.
> 

According to biblical scholars, the first written reference to Christ, was
written at least 70 - 90 years after the fact.  Given that that's about
twice the average life span, back in those days, it's highly unlikely that
whoever wrote it ever witnessed anything claimed.  As for evidence, care to
cite some, other than quotes that can be traced to the bible?  How is it
that King Herod could kill all those babies, without anyone recording the
fact?  Why is there no contemporary record of Christ's followers and
miracles etc.?  Where is the evidence that he ever existed???  Also, if you
care to do a bit of research on the bible's origin, you will find that it
largely came from a bunch of parables, compiled and edited by a group with
a specific agenda, who omitted certain inconvenient items and "enhanced"
others.  You will also find various versions of the bible over the
centuries, with various things added or removed.  For an example of this,
compare the King James and Catholic bibles.   Which one is "correct"?  Why?

As for ignorance, religion has been a great cause of that over the
centuries.  The church kept knowledge from all but the clergy and royalty. 
Also, ever wonder why the dark ages primarily affected the Christian world? 
Why was the arab world flourishing at that time, even though they also
experienced various "heathen" attacks, not to mention the crusades.  Take a
look at how Galeleo and Copernicus were persecuted by the church, for
daring to challenge long held beliefs.  There was even a bishop burn alive
as a witch, for simply investigating magnetism.  History has repeatedly
shown that much of the ignorance over the centuries, right up to the
present, has been induced by the church.  Accepting religion means requires
a closed mind, because it requires ignoring the reality around you.  A real
cute example of this, was a few weeks ago, when that bride to be ran away
from Georgia (IIRC).  The church minister claimed their prayers were
answered, when she turned up in New Mexico.  This ignores the fact, that
she bought the bus tickets two days earlier and made other arrangements
prior to running away.   It was a planned trip and the woman was in no more
danger than anyone else on a cross country bus trip.  Yet to believe that
minister, the prayers caused a miracle.  What a load of B.S.!

Bottom line.  Religion is a delusion. 

on July 03 12:30 am James Knott wrote:

> roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>> One problem with usenet is that ignorance can infect even 
>> intelligent people. Our knowledge of Jesus does not come from 
>> Josephus!

How is any of this going to help me compile my kernel so as to get my
sound card and mouse wheel working. Answer me THAT!!

If you really want to know then answer to life the universe and
everything then why not ask these people. soc.religion.christian,
uk.religion.christian

-- 

"I'm convinced that, if you could decode the 'unused' bits of our DNA,
  they'd read:

         This is a test, please ignore

  or perhaps:

         The Elder Ones make no warranty of any kind with regard to
         this material, including, but not limited to, the implied
         warranties or merchantability and fitness for a particular
         purpose"

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> There are people out there who try to find excuses to ignore all this.
> The majority of these don't have any idea what sort of evidence we
> usually have for ancient events and history.  Instead they work out
> what sort of criteria the evidence will not pass, and demand that.
> That these standards would dispose of all historical record prior to
> around 1300 is, of course, not something they are concerned about at
> all.

There are a lot of religious "artifacts" from around that time, including
the Shroud of Turin, that have been proven fake.  A recent "discovery" was
that James ossuary, that turned up a couple of years ago.  While the box
itself may have been contemporary, the inscription was very recent, hence a
forgery.  That is the sort of evidence that's turning up, not the kind that
shows the existence of Christ.  Also, much of the historical and
archeological record for that era, contradicts the bible.  Are we supposed
to believe hard facts, or a story with no supporting evidence?

malloc wrote:

> How is any of this going to help me compile my kernel so as to get my
> sound card and mouse wheel working. Answer me THAT!!
> 

Pray to the computer gods.  ;-)

begin  risky.vbs
	<SLidnUuwHLRAuFrfRVn-gQ@rogers.com>,
	James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> writes:
> roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> 
>> There are people out there who try to find excuses to ignore all this.
>> The majority of these don't have any idea what sort of evidence we
>> usually have for ancient events and history.  Instead they work out
>> what sort of criteria the evidence will not pass, and demand that.
>> That these standards would dispose of all historical record prior to
>> around 1300 is, of course, not something they are concerned about at
>> all.
> 
> There are a lot of religious "artifacts" from around that time,
> including the Shroud of Turin, that have been proven fake.  A recent
> "discovery" was that James ossuary, that turned up a couple of years
> ago.  While the box itself may have been contemporary, the
> inscription was very recent, hence a forgery.  That is the sort of
> evidence that's turning up, not the kind that shows the existence of
> Christ.  Also, much of the historical and archeological record for
> that era, contradicts the bible.  Are we supposed to believe hard
> facts, or a story with no supporting evidence?

When have christians ever bothered about hard facts? It doesn't matter
how many facts you give them about inaccuracies in the bible there
belief is based on blind faith. All religions rely on the ignorance of
their followers. That is why they are so successful in the third
world. It also says a lot about the US these days and how a religious
arsehole is their president.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote:
> >Luna Lane wrote:
> >> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> >> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> >> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> >> assignments.
> >
> >OK.  Here is the first problem.  Does your lab have a bunch of high-end
>
> The *first* problem is that you are responding to a troll.  He
> is not a CS student, there is no "prof", and everything he said
> was fabricated with the intent of suckering fools to comment.

Of course he's a troll.  But this is such a common tactic.  Rather than
try and allow a direct side-by-side comparison of Linux and Windows,
this "student" claims that his professor is claiming that Solaris is
better than Linux.

The comparison is valid.  A $25,000 sparcStation is probably going to
be much better than a $500 Walmart Linux machine.  It's a sucker punch
gambit.  For me to try and say "Your professor has no clue, get real
and get Linux" would have shown be to be uninformed, grossly biased, or
just foolish.

> >SparcStations?  Very hard to go back to a Honda Civic after you've been
> >driving a Lincoln Continental for a few years.  Hey, if you have the
> >bucks to spring for a SparcStation, complete with 24 inch monitor and 4
> >megapixel resolution, more power to you.  I had one, I loved it.
>
> Well, that is wonderful.  I like great *hardware* too.  What's that
> got to do with Linux?

Sun makes a great Hardware/Software combination.  This is why it would
be inappropriate for me to try to claim that Linux on Intel is
superior.  If you have the cash, and you want the very best available,
a top-of-the-line Mac or Solaris is really a great choice.

I'm looking at the Sun site in another window and I haven't had much
luck getting a current price list.  I did see that the Sun Ultra 3
Mobile Workstation, which has some pretty impressive specs for a
Notebook, will be selling at a base price of about $3400.  I could get
a Thinkpad for about $900, and a Dell for $600.  But the Sun model has
some pretty impressive specifications, including dual-core CPU, 1.
SXGA+ 15 or 17 inch display, and other goodies.

Sure, if I had the resources, I'd love one.  If I were spending someone
else's money, I'd want one.  But when I know that I have to fork over
enough to buy a used car, a 3 week vacation at a nice resort, or any
number of other "fun" things, it's a bit more of a price than I might
want to pop for right away.

Our hypothetical professor wants to spend someone else's money, and
cannot really use "discressionary" income.  Perhaps he'd rather get 10
Sun SparcStations than 30 or 50 Intel Workstations, or 80 Linux
workstations.

> >Compared to that, Linux is a bit weak.
>
> How do you compare hardware with an Operating System?

I'm trying to create the type of typical scenarior where someone might
make those conclusions.  $4000 sun hardware running Solaris 10 > $300
walmart special running Linux.  Hide the price tag, and of course Sun
Wins.

> You do realize that Linux will run on that hardware, right?

Sure it will.  But the point is that this is hardware that has been
optimized for Solaris by Sun.  Nothing wrong with that either.

A common misleading tactic when WinTrolls are comparing Linux to
Windows is the attempt to install Linux on a machine which they often
KNOW is not certified to run Linux, and often contains hardware KNOWN
to be Linux hostile.  Then they base their "evaluation" of Linux on a
faulty installation based on the misleading assumption that any effort
was made to select compatible hardware, and compare 20 minutes of
experience with this "crippled" installation with 10 years of
experience with Windows systems which were custom configured by the
OEMs to run with Windows.

> >After all, when you have
> >1600x1200 or even 4096x3072 resolution, on a monitor the size of most
> >big screen home theaters, Linux on a 1024x762 screen is just a bit of a
> >letdown.
>
> Then don't run Linux on a 1024x762 screen.  Get a 4096x3072
> screen.  Linux handles that just a easily.

Very true, but the "typical" Linux basis for comparison is standard
"Wintel" hardware that has been "converted" to Linux.

I bet it's beautiful up there right now.  Try to get some sleep. :-D

> --
> Floyd L. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote:
>> >Luna Lane wrote:
>> >> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
>> >> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
>> >> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
>> >> assignments.
>> >
>> >OK.  Here is the first problem.  Does your lab have a bunch of high-end
>>
>> The *first* problem is that you are responding to a troll.  He
>> is not a CS student, there is no "prof", and everything he said
>> was fabricated with the intent of suckering fools to comment.
>
>Of course he's a troll.  But this is such a common tactic.  Rather than
>try and allow a direct side-by-side comparison of Linux and Windows,
>this "student" claims that his professor is claiming that Solaris is
>better than Linux.

Comparing Solaris and Linux is indeed valid.

>The comparison is valid.  A $25,000 sparcStation is probably going to
>be much better than a $500 Walmart Linux machine.  It's a sucker punch

That is a compareison between $25,000 *hardware* and $500
*hardware*, and has *nothing* to do with either Solaris or
Linux.

Linux could be installed on the same $25,000 SparcStation.

Moreover, Linux could be installed on hardware costing ten or
more times that, which would run circles around the
SparcStation.

>gambit.  For me to try and say "Your professor has no clue, get real
>and get Linux" would have shown be to be uninformed, grossly biased, or
>just foolish.

Your results are the same.

>> >SparcStations?  Very hard to go back to a Honda Civic after you've been
>> >driving a Lincoln Continental for a few years.  Hey, if you have the
>> >bucks to spring for a SparcStation, complete with 24 inch monitor and 4
>> >megapixel resolution, more power to you.  I had one, I loved it.
>>
>> Well, that is wonderful.  I like great *hardware* too.  What's that
>> got to do with Linux?
>
>Sun makes a great Hardware/Software combination.  This is why it would
>be inappropriate for me to try to claim that Linux on Intel is
>superior.  If you have the cash, and you want the very best available,
>a top-of-the-line Mac or Solaris is really a great choice.

So is Linux, which will run on the same hardware.  Why are you
limiting Linux to run only on Intel?  For that matter, why are
you limiting Solaris to run only on a SparcStation?

>I'm looking at the Sun site in another window and I haven't had much
>luck getting a current price list.  I did see that the Sun Ultra 3
>Mobile Workstation, which has some pretty impressive specs for a
>Notebook, will be selling at a base price of about $3400.  I could get
>a Thinkpad for about $900, and a Dell for $600.  But the Sun model has
>some pretty impressive specifications, including dual-core CPU, 1.
>SXGA+ 15 or 17 inch display, and other goodies.

So?  We wall know that hardware is hardware, and ten times as
much money will certainly buy better hardware.  What has that
got to do with either Linux or Solaris?

(You are aware that there are laptops, with Intel or AMD
processors, costing far more than $3400, right?)

>Sure, if I had the resources, I'd love one.  If I were spending someone
>else's money, I'd want one.  But when I know that I have to fork over
>enough to buy a used car, a 3 week vacation at a nice resort, or any
>number of other "fun" things, it's a bit more of a price than I might
>want to pop for right away.
>
>Our hypothetical professor wants to spend someone else's money, and
>cannot really use "discressionary" income.  Perhaps he'd rather get 10
>Sun SparcStations than 30 or 50 Intel Workstations, or 80 Linux
>workstations.

He might be better off with an IBM mainframe, running Linux of
course?

>> >Compared to that, Linux is a bit weak.
>>
>> How do you compare hardware with an Operating System?
>
>I'm trying to create the type of typical scenarior where someone might
>make those conclusions.  $4000 sun hardware running Solaris 10 > $300
>walmart special running Linux.  Hide the price tag, and of course Sun
>Wins.

You compared two operating systems, saying one was better, but
the difference was the fact that you put one OS on hardware that
cost 50 times as much as the other.  Switch the hardware, and
you have to switch the OS you claimed was better...  because
your comparison was simply invalid.

>> You do realize that Linux will run on that hardware, right?
>
>Sure it will.  But the point is that this is hardware that has been
>optimized for Solaris by Sun.  Nothing wrong with that either.

Nothing wrong with comparing hardware and concluding that the
OS's are different?  That is illogical.

Either compare the hardware and draw conclusions about the
hardware; or compare the Operating Systems and draw conclusions
about the Operating Systems.  But you can't mix what you compare
and what your conclusions apply to.

>A common misleading tactic when WinTrolls are comparing Linux to
>Windows is the attempt to install Linux on a machine which they often
>KNOW is not certified to run Linux, and often contains hardware KNOWN
>to be Linux hostile.  Then they base their "evaluation" of Linux on a
>faulty installation based on the misleading assumption that any effort
>was made to select compatible hardware, and compare 20 minutes of
>experience with this "crippled" installation with 10 years of
>experience with Windows systems which were custom configured by the
>OEMs to run with Windows.

That is essentially no different than what you did, just a
matter of which direction one takes the hardware comparison.

>> >After all, when you have
>> >1600x1200 or even 4096x3072 resolution, on a monitor the size of most
>> >big screen home theaters, Linux on a 1024x762 screen is just a bit of a
>> >letdown.
>>
>> Then don't run Linux on a 1024x762 screen.  Get a 4096x3072
>> screen.  Linux handles that just a easily.
>
>Very true, but the "typical" Linux basis for comparison is standard
>"Wintel" hardware that has been "converted" to Linux.

That doesn't make sense.  If you want a 4096x3072 screen,
*don't* buy 1024x768 hardware.

>I bet it's beautiful up there right now.  Try to get some sleep. :-D

It is always beautiful here.  I sleep very well too.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote:

> A common misleading tactic when WinTrolls are comparing Linux to
> Windows is the attempt to install Linux on a machine which they often
> KNOW is not certified to run Linux, and often contains hardware KNOWN
> to be Linux hostile.  Then they base their "evaluation" of Linux on a
> faulty installation based on the misleading assumption that any effort
> was made to select compatible hardware, and compare 20 minutes of
> experience with this "crippled" installation with 10 years of
> experience with Windows systems which were custom configured by the
> OEMs to run with Windows.

Well,  I guess I'll just have to throw in my comparison.  I recently
installed SuSE 9.3 and XP on a  Compaq Presario, that's about 4 - 5 years
old.  SuSE installed fine, without any problems and all the hardware works. 
On the other hand, XP failed to recognise the unbranded NIC.  Using info
provided by SuSE, I was able to determine that it was an SMC NIC and was
then able to locate XP drivers for it.  This proves beyond any shadow of a
doubt, that XP is useless.  ;-)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

>>Sun makes a great Hardware/Software combination.  This is why it would
>>be inappropriate for me to try to claim that Linux on Intel is
>>superior.  If you have the cash, and you want the very best available,
>>a top-of-the-line Mac or Solaris is really a great choice.
> 
> So is Linux, which will run on the same hardware.  Why are you
> limiting Linux to run only on Intel?  For that matter, why are
> you limiting Solaris to run only on a SparcStation?

Of course there's no reason why someone couldn't run Solaris on an x86 box. 
Also, Linux can run on almost anything, from a PDA up to big
supercomputers.  In fact, according to what I read recently Linux is
running on 8 of the top 10 supercomputers in the world.

I wonder what the prof has to say about this article?

<http://www.forbes.com/home/enterprisetech/2005/03/15/cz_dl_0315linux.html>

On 2 Jul 2005 23:38:00 -0700, r.e.ballard@usa.net Gave us:

>
>I bet it's beautiful up there right now.  Try to get some sleep. :-D

  Global warming is melting away everything.

James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote:
>>>Sun makes a great Hardware/Software combination.  This is why it would
>>>be inappropriate for me to try to claim that Linux on Intel is
>>>superior.  If you have the cash, and you want the very best available,
>>>a top-of-the-line Mac or Solaris is really a great choice.
>>
>> So is Linux, which will run on the same hardware.  Why are you
>> limiting Linux to run only on Intel?  For that matter, why are
>> you limiting Solaris to run only on a SparcStation?
>
>Of course there's no reason why someone couldn't run Solaris on an x86 box.

r.e.ballard posted not one, but *two* articles suggesting it
doesn't.  And his idea of "the very best available" seems overly
restricted.

>Also, Linux can run on almost anything, from a PDA up to big
>supercomputers.  In fact, according to what I read recently Linux is
>running on 8 of the top 10 supercomputers in the world.
>
>I wonder what the prof has to say about this article?

The "prof" doesn't exist.  That was just bait for the OP's
troll.

><http://www.forbes.com/home/enterprisetech/2005/03/15/cz_dl_0315linux.html>

I note that r.e.ballard should take a close look:

       "Moreover, Seager says Linux outguns popular Unix
       operating systems like AIX and Solaris from Sun
       Microsystems (nasdaq: SUNW - news - people ) because
       those systems contain features that make them great for
       commercial users but add a lot of system overhead that
       ends up limiting overall performance."

Clearly when his "4096x3072 screen" on $25,000 hardware is too
slow to get the job done, the answer is an *upgrade* to Linux.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

begin  trojan.vbs It was on Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:53:33 -0400, that James
Knott wrote:

> malloc wrote:
> 
>> How is any of this going to help me compile my kernel so as to get my
>> sound card and mouse wheel working. Answer me THAT!!
>> 
> 
> Pray to the computer gods.  ;-)

Maybe slay a chicken & read the bones? <g>

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

>>I wonder what the prof has to say about this article?
> 
> The "prof" doesn't exist.  That was just bait for the OP's
> troll.

Yes I know.  I was just humouring him.

> I note that r.e.ballard should take a close look:
> 
>        "Moreover, Seager says Linux outguns popular Unix
>        operating systems like AIX and Solaris from Sun
>        Microsystems (nasdaq: SUNW - news - people ) because
>        those systems contain features that make them great for
>        commercial users but add a lot of system overhead that
>        ends up limiting overall performance."

The part I like is:

 "Linux is easy to get, has no licensing costs, has all the infrastructure
in place, and runs on pretty much every single relevant piece of hardware
out there." 

Luna Lane wrote:
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness.

Some distros are not user friendly, others like Fedora are.

> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack

It's not UNIX, but it's an AWESOME hack!!


> but he warned
> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
> desktop alternative to Windows.

Haha. Dying? Heck this vine fruit is gonna be the size of an apple, not
a grape
before long.

> "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
> 98 percent of the market".

Of course! Linux is mainly free so it doesn't really have any of the OS
market!!

>
> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?

Hardly!

> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
> Or maybe that was 2003?
> How about 2012?

Double hardly!

Why'd you bother posting anyway?

Roy Culley wrote:
> 
> begin  risky.vbs
>         <SLidnUuwHLRAuFrfRVn-gQ@rogers.com>,
>         James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> writes:
> > roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >
> >> There are people out there who try to find excuses to ignore all this.
> >> The majority of these don't have any idea what sort of evidence we
> >> usually have for ancient events and history.  Instead they work out
> >> what sort of criteria the evidence will not pass, and demand that.
> >> That these standards would dispose of all historical record prior to
> >> around 1300 is, of course, not something they are concerned about at
> >> all.
> >
> > There are a lot of religious "artifacts" from around that time,
> > including the Shroud of Turin, that have been proven fake.  A recent
> > "discovery" was that James ossuary, that turned up a couple of years
> > ago.  While the box itself may have been contemporary, the
> > inscription was very recent, hence a forgery.  That is the sort of
> > evidence that's turning up, not the kind that shows the existence of
> > Christ.  Also, much of the historical and archeological record for
> > that era, contradicts the bible.  Are we supposed to believe hard
> > facts, or a story with no supporting evidence?
> 
> When have christians ever bothered about hard facts? It doesn't matter
> how many facts you give them about inaccuracies in the bible there
> belief is based on blind faith. All religions rely on the ignorance of
> their followers. That is why they are so successful in the third
> world. It also says a lot about the US these days and how a religious
> arsehole is their president.

And quite unfortunate for us as well.  His religious
attitude has spilled over into foreign policies.
This attitude of course is the "End Times" attitude.  In
otherwords, the end is near so it won't matter anyways
attitude.  Sad indeed.

We have all agreed that Luna Lane was probably a WinTroll trying to
discredit Linux by comparing it to Solaris.

What I tried to provide was the typical scenario where a Solaris user
would reccomend Solaris over Linux as being vastly superior.

Sun has yet to successfully implement a version of Solaris which works
effectively and reliably on a wide variedy of Intel/AMD "IBM
Compatible" PCs.  Of course, this term is no longer relevant since IBM
no longer makes PCs as an OEM.

Linux has been far more effective at supporting a far broader spectrum
of PCs and providing more of the available features for those machines.

Sun does sell some Intel/AMD workstations and those machines will run
both Linux and Solaris quite effectively.  It would be hard to make a
case for the superiority of one over the other on the same Sun
hardware.

Solaris on the SPArC, is a very different story.  The SPArCStation is a
very nice machine, and it's easy to see why  a Sun lover would sing the
praises of Solaris on SPArC over Linux on Intel/AMD.

The fact is that both operating systems are very good.

Linux gives you unlimited users, very few usage restrictions, and
support from a variety of software vendors, support vendors, and
hardware vendors.

Which is "Better" is more a function of your existing support network.

By the way, this isn't a new debate.  Similar arguments were made
against Linux as a server.  Over time, the industry trend is for Sun
environments to migrate to fewer and fewer more powerful machines,
while Linux environments tend to migrate to more machines, each doing
more specialized work.

For me to give an unqualified "Linux is Better than Solaris" with the
implication that Linux is better in every possible workload situation,
just wouldn't be an accurate statement.  There are certain environments
where Solaris, AIX, HP_UX, or OS/390 are far better solutions than
Linux on Intel.

There are even some situations where Windows is better than Linux.  For
example, if you have a shop where absolutely nobody knows anything
about Linux (because you have fired or driven away all of those who
have bothered to learn Linux), you have an organization that is too
small to have a full-time UNIX/Linux administrator, but too large to
depend on remotely managed support (8-20 employees), and your Windows
administrator is also an office administrator or other nondedicated
employee, and this person insists that he will only learn Linux if you
send him to off-site dedicated training in an an extended training  and
Certification program, then Linux is probably not the best choice for
that organization.

Keep in mind, in the scenario above, you have deliberately painted
yourself into a corner and created a situation in which you have
intentionally made anything other than Windows unworkable.  This is a
situation caused by deliberate and willful decisions and actions made
and taken by top level IT management, and the IT manager or
administrator should be held accountable for the unexpected costs
related to the inability to explore Linux or UNIX.

When Linux talent does walk into the door, you can drive it away, or
you can nurture it.  If you attempt to force someone who really knows
Linux, who has taken the initiative to learn it on his own time, using
his own personal resources, and without direct hourly compensation, to
abandon that knowledge and "stick with Windows", you are likely to lose
the very type of talent you most want in your organization and your IT
organization.

What you will be left with is an IT organization addicted to the status
quo, committed to keeping practices, proceedures, and solutions that
are not necessarily cost effective, and most importantly, may not be as
flexible as the tactices your competitors are using.

It's like the football coach who recruits lots of mediocre players, but
then lets them skip practice, decline to do drills, and doesn't seem to
care if they can run the plays effectively.  The result is a team that
won't be going to the championship.

Roy Culley wrote:
> begin  risky.vbs
> 	<1120319280.957613.34300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> 	roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk writes:
> > James Knott wrote:
> >> amosf wrote:
> >>
> >> >> According to what I read, there was no record of it.
> > One problem with usenet is that ignorance can infect even intelligent
> > people.  Our knowledge of Jesus does not come from Josephus! -- he
> > merely happens to confirm in general terms what we knew already.  We
> > get our knowledge from the New Testament, which those who knew the
> > authors tell us was written by people who knew Jesus and their
> > associates.  Nor is this in a vaccuum, since the man founded an
> > organisation which has left some 5000 pages of writing in the first 3
> > centuries alone.
>
> Can you explain to me how a man who supposedly performed miracles,...
> ... yet not a single written word by his contemporaries exists? All we
> have is stories written about this man decades after his death.

Why you ignore the written accounts by his contemporaries I'm not sure.
 The suggestion that accounts written decades after the events should
be ignored would dispose of Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio and
Josephus as witnesses for all first century history.

> The only rational conclusion anyone can have is that Jesus, as depicted
> in the NT, never existed.

Either all the educated people in the world are irrational, or you are.
 You'll pardon me if I doubt, on the basis of your post, that everyone
else is wrong.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>> Can you explain to me how a man who supposedly performed miracles,...
>> ... yet not a single written word by his contemporaries exists? All we
>> have is stories written about this man decades after his death.
> 
> Why you ignore the written accounts by his contemporaries I'm not sure.
>  The suggestion that accounts written decades after the events should
> be ignored would dispose of Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio and
> Josephus as witnesses for all first century history.

Whose contemporaries?  According to biblical scholars, there is no
contemporary evidence of Christ.  If you're referring to others writting at
the time of Tacitus, why are their sources any better than his, unless they
have better provenance?  As for being witnesses, it's hard for someone such
as Tacitus, to be a witness to events that supposedly happened a half
century before he was born.  It would be the same a me claiming to witness
Lincoln's murder.  I couldn't have witnessed that, because it happened long
before I was born.  To accept those accounts, you have to show some
evidence that what they're writing about has some basis in reality.  There
is nothing that's been found that proves he did.  How do you know Tacitus
was not simply passing on what he heard, from someone who was promoting the
Christian cult.

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

>> The only rational conclusion anyone can have is that Jesus, as depicted
>> in the NT, never existed.
>
> Either all the educated people in the world are irrational, or you are.
> You'll pardon me if I doubt, on the basis of your post, that everyone
> else is wrong.

Epiphany!  Bill Gates was thinking "Windows New Testament"!

And now, what we actually get is "Windows Old Testament", a malware
disasters of Biblical proportions!

-- 
Tux rox!

Lin�nut wrote:

>> Either all the educated people in the world are irrational, or you are.
>> You'll pardon me if I doubt, on the basis of your post, that everyone
>> else is wrong.
> 
> Epiphany!  Bill Gates was thinking "Windows New Testament"!
> 
> And now, what we actually get is "Windows Old Testament", a malware
> disasters of Biblical proportions!
> 

I have a book here "The Linux Bible - GNU Testament".  Unlike "The Bible",
it contains real facts.

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> > The only rational conclusion anyone can have is that Jesus, as depicted
> > in the NT, never existed.
> 
> Either all the educated people in the world are irrational, or you are.
>  You'll pardon me if I doubt, on the basis of your post, that everyone
> else is wrong.

Are you implying that all the educated people in the world believe in
Christ?  And the corollary that non-believers are un-educated?  That sounds
incredibly arrogant to me.  Isn't that a sin?  All this reminds me of
someone, who claimed that only Christians could be moral.

Roy Culley wrote:
> begin  risky.vbs
> 	<1120319280.957613.34300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> 	roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk writes:
> > James Knott wrote:
> >> amosf wrote:
> >>
> >> >> According to what I read, there was no record of it.
> >> >
> >> > No records of a roman crucifixion of 'jesus' at the time exist to my
> >> > knowlege.
> >> >
> >> > Only records are from josephus, again after the fact (62CE) - and possibly
> >> > doctored even later in history... But a very short record by a hebrew
> >> > historian working for rome, right?
> >>
> >> That's a big problem with the biblical account of Christ.  There's
> >> absolutely no record of him, prior to several decades after events
> >> supposedly happened.  Perhaps a bit of revisionist history in the making
> >> there?  A bit of embellishment?  Pure fiction?
> >>
> >> One thing you can be certain of, anyone writing those accounts that have
> >> been found is extremely unlikely to have ever met such a person or
> >> witnessed those events.
> >
> > One problem with usenet is that ignorance can infect even intelligent
> > people.  Our knowledge of Jesus does not come from Josephus! -- he
> > merely happens to confirm in general terms what we knew already.  We
> > get our knowledge from the New Testament, which those who knew the
> > authors tell us was written by people who knew Jesus and their
> > associates.  Nor is this in a vaccuum, since the man founded an
> > organisation which has left some 5000 pages of writing in the first 3
> > centuries alone.
>
> Can you explain to me how a man who supposedly performed miracles,
> preached to the multitude, pissed of the established religious
> hierarchy, had to be brought before the romans to have him 'legally'
> executed and supposedly rose from the dead and yet not a single
> written word by his contemporaries exists? All we have is stories
> written about this man decades after his death.
>
  Gallile was a place of revolt and if the Jerusalem authorities
  executed Jesus a Gallilean and a revolt broke out the Romans
  would have blamed them.

  The second part of your question is called the argument
  from silence.
  Most Roman historians didn't mention the living
  Emoeror because if he didn't like what you wrote
  it could be dangerous for your heath. Mentioning
  a king of the Jews might upset Caesar.

  There is a bigger argument from silence, and that is, why
  didn't the Romans use an historian like Josephius who
  was a Roman hostage to write a tome refuting Christianity?
  The fact is no credible tome was written refuting Christianity
  although some learned pagans tried, such as, Celsus and
  Prophyr of Tyre. The simple answer is you can't refute the
  truth and the Emperors torured and murdered people like
  Justin Martyr who defended Christianity.


> The only rational conclusion anyone can have is that Jesus, as depicted
> in the NT, never existed.

  As for the positive evidence Irenaeus of Lyons circa 180 A.D.
  and Tertullian of Carthage circa 200 A.D. pointed out that
  the various churches that traced back to the Apostles had
  the same four Gospels and letters of Paul. They also, dared
  people to go to the ancient churches that traced back to the
  Apostles, and check it out for themselves. This was way before
  Christianity was legalized by the Edict of Milan (313 A.D. and
  there was no way the persecuted churches could force unity. Today,
  All you need to do is go to your local Bible Society, and check out
  the ancient versions in Aramaic, Greek, Coptic(both Southern and
  Northern Egypt), Vetus Latin, and other ancient languages. The only
rational    conclusion anyone can have is that Jesus, as depicted
 in the NT, is the Gospel Truth.


  Irenaeus's argument can be read in
  "Early Christian Fathers", edited by
   Cyril C. Richardson, Collier Books, P. 370 -384

  Jim

In article <1120502724.703300.226520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 
jwsheffield@satx.rr.com says...
>
>
>
>Roy Culley wrote:
>> begin  risky.vbs
>>       <1120319280.957613.34300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>       roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk writes:
>> > James Knott wrote:
>> >> amosf wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> According to what I read, there was no record of it.
>> >> >
>> >> > No records of a roman crucifixion of 'jesus' at the time exist to my
>> >> > knowlege.
>> >> >
>> >> > Only records are from josephus, again after the fact (62CE) - and 
possibly
>> >> > doctored even later in history... But a very short record by a hebrew
>> >> > historian working for rome, right?
>> >>
>> >> That's a big problem with the biblical account of Christ.  There's
>> >> absolutely no record of him, prior to several decades after events
>> >> supposedly happened.  Perhaps a bit of revisionist history in the making
>> >> there?  A bit of embellishment?  Pure fiction?
>> >>
>> >> One thing you can be certain of, anyone writing those accounts that have
>> >> been found is extremely unlikely to have ever met such a person or
>> >> witnessed those events.
>> >
>> > One problem with usenet is that ignorance can infect even intelligent
>> > people.  Our knowledge of Jesus does not come from Josephus! -- he
>> > merely happens to confirm in general terms what we knew already.  We
>> > get our knowledge from the New Testament, which those who knew the
>> > authors tell us was written by people who knew Jesus and their
>> > associates.  Nor is this in a vaccuum, since the man founded an
>> > organisation which has left some 5000 pages of writing in the first 3
>> > centuries alone.
>>
>> Can you explain to me how a man who supposedly performed miracles,
>> preached to the multitude, pissed of the established religious
>> hierarchy, had to be brought before the romans to have him 'legally'
>> executed and supposedly rose from the dead and yet not a single
>> written word by his contemporaries exists? All we have is stories
>> written about this man decades after his death.
>>
>  Gallile was a place of revolt and if the Jerusalem authorities
>  executed Jesus a Gallilean and a revolt broke out the Romans
>  would have blamed them.
>
>  The second part of your question is called the argument
>  from silence.
>  Most Roman historians didn't mention the living
>  Emoeror because if he didn't like what you wrote
>  it could be dangerous for your heath. Mentioning
>  a king of the Jews might upset Caesar.
>
>  There is a bigger argument from silence, and that is, why
>  didn't the Romans use an historian like Josephius who
>  was a Roman hostage to write a tome refuting Christianity?
>  The fact is no credible tome was written refuting Christianity
>  although some learned pagans tried, such as, Celsus and
>  Prophyr of Tyre. The simple answer is you can't refute the
>  truth and the Emperors torured and murdered people like
>  Justin Martyr who defended Christianity.
>
>
>> The only rational conclusion anyone can have is that Jesus, as depicted
>> in the NT, never existed.
>
>  As for the positive evidence Irenaeus of Lyons circa 180 A.D.
>  and Tertullian of Carthage circa 200 A.D. pointed out that
>  the various churches that traced back to the Apostles had
>  the same four Gospels and letters of Paul. They also, dared
>  people to go to the ancient churches that traced back to the
>  Apostles, and check it out for themselves. This was way before
>  Christianity was legalized by the Edict of Milan (313 A.D. and
>  there was no way the persecuted churches could force unity. Today,
>  All you need to do is go to your local Bible Society, and check out
>  the ancient versions in Aramaic, Greek, Coptic(both Southern and
>  Northern Egypt), Vetus Latin, and other ancient languages. The only
>rational    conclusion anyone can have is that Jesus, as depicted
> in the NT, is the Gospel Truth.
>
>
>  Irenaeus's argument can be read in
>  "Early Christian Fathers", edited by
>   Cyril C. Richardson, Collier Books, P. 370 -384
>
>  Jim
>


There is another view, another viewpoint, that says things differently.
www.tjresearch.info
This says, briefly, that the figure of 'Jesus' wasn't called Jesus
in his time, but Jmmanuel, and that the Jesus story is based on the
account of Jmmanuel.
There are important differences in this story. Jesus/Jmmanuel is just
a prophet, never the Son of God, etc.
He wasn't resurrected as the Christians claim, but resusicitated by
Joseph of Arithmea - that he did recover and journeyed onto India with
Mary (his mother) - but Mary died en route. Jesus/Jmmanuel settled in
Kashmir and lived to an old age and died there.
www.tombofjesus.com
This story is recounted in 'Did Jesus Die?' an independent television
production, and has not connection with www.tjresearch.info
The book by Ed T Martin 'King of Travellers - Jesus' Lost Years in India'
follows the route taken and recounts local legends in those localities
which retell the above story. Also mentioning other Jesus in India
books, which say the same thing. Many books were written but they have
been noticed in the west before.

The Talmud Jmmanuel text is suppose to be the most accurate text
that follows the real story about Jesus/Jmmanuel. There are important
differences between this and the Christian version we know of.
eg. Judas is Jmmanuel/Jesus most trusted apostle. He didn't betray Jesus
at all, that was another Judas with a similar sounding surname.
Also note: Judas was the only other person of the apostles to be able to
write, and was Jesus/Jmmanuel's scribe, is the author of the Talmud Jmmanuel.
He was also treasurer of the apostles - so it didn't make sense he would
betray Jesus/Jmmanuel, since he already had access to more than 30 pieces
of silver.
The Talmud Jmmanuel contains the actual teachings of Jesus/Jmmanuel -
he taught about the Creation (not God) and about self responsibility.
Reincarnation was part of the teachings.

Harvey

James Knott wrote:
> roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> > One problem with usenet is that ignorance can infect even intelligent
> > people.  Our knowledge of Jesus does not come from Josephus! -- he
> > merely happens to confirm in general terms what we knew already.  We
> > get our knowledge from the New Testament, which those who knew the
> > authors tell us was written by people who knew Jesus and their
> > associates.  Nor is this in a vaccuum, since the man founded an
> > organisation which has left some 5000 pages of writing in the first 3
> > centuries alone.
> >
>
> According to biblical scholars, the first written reference to Christ, was
> written at least 70 - 90 years after the fact.  Given that that's about
> twice the average life span, back in those days, it's highly unlikely that
> whoever wrote it ever witnessed anything claimed.  As for evidence, care to
> cite some, other than quotes that can be traced to the bible?  How is it
> that King Herod could kill all those babies, without anyone recording the
> fact?  Why is there no contemporary record of Christ's followers and
> miracles etc.?  Where is the evidence that he ever existed???  Also, if you
> care to do a bit of research on the bible's origin, you will find that it
> largely came from a bunch of parables, compiled and edited by a group with
> a specific agenda, who omitted certain inconvenient items and "enhanced"
> others.  You will also find various versions of the bible over the
> centuries, with various things added or removed.  For an example of this,
> compare the King James and Catholic bibles.   Which one is "correct"?  Why?
>
 You are quoting scholars from the 20th century. Lets quote
 an aythor from the 2nd who heard Polycarp in his youth and
Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons.

"So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
disciple
and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what Peter
had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the
Lord,
who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."

 "Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson,
 Collier Books, P 370

 As to your argument from silence, Ancient historians
 often didn't mention the living Emperor because if he
 didn't like what you wrote it could be dangerous for
 your health.
 The bigger argument from silence is why didn't the Romans
 write a credible tome refuting Christianity? They had
 Josepheus as a hostage.

 If you read the different versions of the NT in Aramaic, Greek,
 Coptic(both Northern and Southern Egypt), Vetus Latin, and
 other ancient languages, you shall find small scribal differences,
 but the same story of Jesus and his love. Irenaeus circa 180 A.D.
 and Tetullian circa 200 A.D. challenged people in the
 ancient world to check out the ancient churches to see that
 was correct. Today, all you have to do is go to your blocal
 Bible Society to check out the ancient versions.



> As for ignorance, religion has been a great cause of that over the
> centuries.  The church kept knowledge from all but the clergy and royalty.
> Also, ever wonder why the dark ages primarily affected the Christian world?
> Why was the arab world flourishing at that time, even though they also
> experienced various "heathen" attacks, not to mention the crusades.  Take a
> look at how Galeleo and Copernicus were persecuted by the church, for
> daring to challenge long held beliefs.  There was even a bishop burn alive
> as a witch, for simply investigating magnetism.  History has repeatedly
> shown that much of the ignorance over the centuries, right up to the
> present, has been induced by the church.  Accepting religion means requires
> a closed mind, because it requires ignoring the reality around you.  A real
> cute example of this, was a few weeks ago, when that bride to be ran away
> from Georgia (IIRC).  The church minister claimed their prayers were
> answered, when she turned up in New Mexico.  This ignores the fact, that
> she bought the bus tickets two days earlier and made other arrangements
> prior to running away.   It was a planned trip and the woman was in no more
> danger than anyone else on a cross country bus trip.  Yet to believe that
> minister, the prayers caused a miracle.  What a load of B.S.!
>
> Bottom line.  Religion is a delusion.

 There were two major states founded on the "non deludion"
 of non belief, Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. If that is
 non delusion, I shall take the delusion.

Jim

Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:
> In article <1120502724.703300.226520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> jwsheffield@satx.rr.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Roy Culley wrote:
> >> begin  risky.vbs
> >>       <1120319280.957613.34300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>       roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk writes:
> >> > James Knott wrote:
> >> >> amosf wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> According to what I read, there was no record of it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No records of a roman crucifixion of 'jesus' at the time exist to my
> >> >> > knowlege.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Only records are from josephus, again after the fact (62CE) - and
> possibly
> >> >> > doctored even later in history... But a very short record by a hebrew
> >> >> > historian working for rome, right?
> >> >>
> >> >> That's a big problem with the biblical account of Christ.  There's
> >> >> absolutely no record of him, prior to several decades after events
> >> >> supposedly happened.  Perhaps a bit of revisionist history in the making
> >> >> there?  A bit of embellishment?  Pure fiction?
> >> >>
> >> >> One thing you can be certain of, anyone writing those accounts that have
> >> >> been found is extremely unlikely to have ever met such a person or
> >> >> witnessed those events.
> >> >
> >> > One problem with usenet is that ignorance can infect even intelligent
> >> > people.  Our knowledge of Jesus does not come from Josephus! -- he
> >> > merely happens to confirm in general terms what we knew already.  We
> >> > get our knowledge from the New Testament, which those who knew the
> >> > authors tell us was written by people who knew Jesus and their
> >> > associates.  Nor is this in a vaccuum, since the man founded an
> >> > organisation which has left some 5000 pages of writing in the first 3
> >> > centuries alone.
> >>
> >> Can you explain to me how a man who supposedly performed miracles,
> >> preached to the multitude, pissed of the established religious
> >> hierarchy, had to be brought before the romans to have him 'legally'
> >> executed and supposedly rose from the dead and yet not a single
> >> written word by his contemporaries exists? All we have is stories
> >> written about this man decades after his death.
> >>
> >  Gallile was a place of revolt and if the Jerusalem authorities
> >  executed Jesus a Gallilean and a revolt broke out the Romans
> >  would have blamed them.
> >
> >  The second part of your question is called the argument
> >  from silence.
> >  Most Roman historians didn't mention the living
> >  Emoeror because if he didn't like what you wrote
> >  it could be dangerous for your heath. Mentioning
> >  a king of the Jews might upset Caesar.
> >
> >  There is a bigger argument from silence, and that is, why
> >  didn't the Romans use an historian like Josephius who
> >  was a Roman hostage to write a tome refuting Christianity?
> >  The fact is no credible tome was written refuting Christianity
> >  although some learned pagans tried, such as, Celsus and
> >  Prophyr of Tyre. The simple answer is you can't refute the
> >  truth and the Emperors torured and murdered people like
> >  Justin Martyr who defended Christianity.
> >
> >
> >> The only rational conclusion anyone can have is that Jesus, as depicted
> >> in the NT, never existed.
> >
> >  As for the positive evidence Irenaeus of Lyons circa 180 A.D.
> >  and Tertullian of Carthage circa 200 A.D. pointed out that
> >  the various churches that traced back to the Apostles had
> >  the same four Gospels and letters of Paul. They also, dared
> >  people to go to the ancient churches that traced back to the
> >  Apostles, and check it out for themselves. This was way before
> >  Christianity was legalized by the Edict of Milan (313 A.D. and
> >  there was no way the persecuted churches could force unity. Today,
> >  All you need to do is go to your local Bible Society, and check out
> >  the ancient versions in Aramaic, Greek, Coptic(both Southern and
> >  Northern Egypt), Vetus Latin, and other ancient languages. The only
> >rational    conclusion anyone can have is that Jesus, as depicted
> > in the NT, is the Gospel Truth.
> >
> >
> >  Irenaeus's argument can be read in
> >  "Early Christian Fathers", edited by
> >   Cyril C. Richardson, Collier Books, P. 370 -384
> >
> >  Jim
> >
>

   On your "another view", can you explain how all the followers
   missed it. I would like bsome historical documentation,
   and I don't mean neverland.

   Jim
>
> There is another view, another viewpoint, that says things differently.
> www.tjresearch.info
> This says, briefly, that the figure of 'Jesus' wasn't called Jesus
> in his time, but Jmmanuel, and that the Jesus story is based on the
> account of Jmmanuel.
> There are important differences in this story. Jesus/Jmmanuel is just
> a prophet, never the Son of God, etc.
> He wasn't resurrected as the Christians claim, but resusicitated by
> Joseph of Arithmea - that he did recover and journeyed onto India with
> Mary (his mother) - but Mary died en route. Jesus/Jmmanuel settled in
> Kashmir and lived to an old age and died there.
> www.tombofjesus.com
> This story is recounted in 'Did Jesus Die?' an independent television
> production, and has not connection with www.tjresearch.info
> The book by Ed T Martin 'King of Travellers - Jesus' Lost Years in India'
> follows the route taken and recounts local legends in those localities
> which retell the above story. Also mentioning other Jesus in India
> books, which say the same thing. Many books were written but they have
> been noticed in the west before.
>
> The Talmud Jmmanuel text is suppose to be the most accurate text
> that follows the real story about Jesus/Jmmanuel. There are important
> differences between this and the Christian version we know of.
> eg. Judas is Jmmanuel/Jesus most trusted apostle. He didn't betray Jesus
> at all, that was another Judas with a similar sounding surname.
> Also note: Judas was the only other person of the apostles to be able to
> write, and was Jesus/Jmmanuel's scribe, is the author of the Talmud Jmmanuel.
> He was also treasurer of the apostles - so it didn't make sense he would
> betray Jesus/Jmmanuel, since he already had access to more than 30 pieces
> of silver.
> The Talmud Jmmanuel contains the actual teachings of Jesus/Jmmanuel -
> he taught about the Creation (not God) and about self responsibility.
> Reincarnation was part of the teachings.
> 
> Harvey

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 08:48:01 -0700, roger_pearse wrote:

> We get our
> knowledge from the New Testament, which those who knew the authors tell us
> was written by people who knew Jesus and their associates.

Yet they can't even agree on the basics. For instance, he is refered to as
"Jesus of Nazereth"...which indicates that he was born in the town of
Nazereth...yet the stories of his birth places him in Bethlehem. The story
of his birth itself is contradictory between sources. Then you get the
story of his ascenscion.....each story is different. They cannot agree as
to who was there, or where exactly it occured. Each story is different.
One he met everyone, then went off alone and then ascended (in which case
how does anyone know he did?), another says his closest followers went
with him and witnessed it, another gives an entirely different location
for where it happened in the first place.

Yeah, the New Testament is a really reliable source of historical data
here...

jwsheffield@satx.rr.com wrote:

> "So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
> were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
> disciple
> and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what Peter
> had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
> the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the
> Lord,
> who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
> while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
> 

According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul) wasn't
written until at least seventy to ninety years after the event.  Given the
lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that whoever wrote the gospels
ever witnessed those events or was even alive at the time.

In article <ws-dnQ4_qeIhJlffRVn-sA@rogers.com>,
 James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:

> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul) wasn't
> written until at least seventy to ninety years after the event.  Given the
> lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that whoever wrote the gospels
> ever witnessed those events or was even alive at the time.

Paul wrote a gospel?  Sheesh!  I must have bought a defective Bible.  
Hmmmm.  All my Bibles are lacking the Gospel acc. to Paul!  I been 
robbed!

Priscilla

James Knott wrote:
> jwsheffield@satx.rr.com wrote:
> 
> 
>>"So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
>>were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
>>disciple
>>and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what Peter
>>had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
>>the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the
>>Lord,
>>who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
>>while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
>>
> 
> 
> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul) wasn't
> written until at least seventy to ninety years after the event.  Given the
> lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that whoever wrote the gospels
> ever witnessed those events or was even alive at the time.
> 

I thought they were written, not 70 years after, but in 70 A.D.

Given that Jesus died at about 33, that would have meant they were 
written 37 years after the event.

Priscilla H. Ballou wrote:
> In article <ws-dnQ4_qeIhJlffRVn-sA@rogers.com>,
>  James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul) wasn't
>>written until at least seventy to ninety years after the event.  Given the
>>lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that whoever wrote the gospels
>>ever witnessed those events or was even alive at the time.
> 
> 
> Paul wrote a gospel?  Sheesh!  I must have bought a defective Bible.  
> Hmmmm.  All my Bibles are lacking the Gospel acc. to Paul!  I been 
> robbed!
> 
> Priscilla

I bought one of those Gospel of Paul bibles from the Reverend Ike along 
with some Spiritual Soul Oil.

Also sprach/Thus spake James Knott:

> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul) wasn't
> written until at least seventy to ninety years after the event.=20

Bzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

> Given the lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that whoever
> wrote the gospels ever witnessed those events or was even alive at
> the time.=20

It is evident from the way the stories in the gospels are written
that the evangelists were no eyewitnesses.

Andreas

James Knott wrote:
> jwsheffield@satx.rr.com wrote:
>
> > "So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
> > were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
> > disciple
> > and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what Peter
> > had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
> > the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the
> > Lord,
> > who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
> > while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
> >
>
> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul) wasn't
> written until at least seventy to ninety years after the event.  Given the
> lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that whoever wrote the gospels
> ever witnessed those events or was even alive at the time.

 You are quoting scholars from the 20th century, I am
 quoting Irenaeus of Lyons who heard Polycarp in his
 youth and Polycarp knew the Apostle John. So Irenaeus
 is almost direct evidence while 20th century scholars
 are ONLY speculating.

 "Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson,
 Collier Books, P. 370 -384.

 Irenaeus and Tertullian also dared anyone who didn't
 believe them to check out the ancient churches and
 see if they were correct.
 Today, all you need to do is go to your local
 Bible Society and check out the ancient versions
 in Aramaic, Greek, Coptic(both Southern and Northern
 Egypt), Vetus Latin, and other ancient languages.
 Study to be approved, then let us reason, together.

 Jim

C. S. Lewis and Irenaeus of Lyons
don't agree with you.
One example from C.S. Lewis.
Lewis points out that Jesus writting in the
sand in the woman in Adultery, is an example
of the writter writting down something he witnessed,
hundreds of years before the realistic novel
came into being.
Andreas,
An assertion that needs to be proven
is bad logic.
Study to be approved, then let us reason together.

Jim

Also sprach/Thus spake jwsheffield@satx.rr.com:

>> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul)
>> wasn't written until at least seventy to ninety years after the
>> event.  Given the lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that
>> whoever wrote the gospels ever witnessed those events or was even
>> alive at the time.=20
>=20
>  You are quoting scholars from the 20th century, I am
>  quoting Irenaeus of Lyons who heard Polycarp in his
>  youth and Polycarp knew the Apostle John. So Irenaeus
>  is almost direct evidence while 20th century scholars
>  are ONLY speculating.

What YOU do is speculating. 20th c scholars are usually
aware of the grounds on which they base their historical
judgements. Otherwise their colleagues would painfully
show them where they were "speculating". Irenaios'
statements OTOH are based on a mixture of hearsay and
wishful thinking.

Andreas

In article <1120591644.631067.55420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 
jwsheffield@satx.rr.com says...
>
>
>
>James Knott wrote:
>> jwsheffield@satx.rr.com wrote:
>>
>> > "So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
>> > were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
>> > disciple
>> > and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what Peter
>> > had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
>> > the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the
>> > Lord,
>> > who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
>> > while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
>> >
>>
>> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul) wasn't
>> written until at least seventy to ninety years after the event.  Given the
>> lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that whoever wrote the gospels
>> ever witnessed those events or was even alive at the time.
>
> You are quoting scholars from the 20th century, I am
> quoting Irenaeus of Lyons who heard Polycarp in his
> youth and Polycarp knew the Apostle John. So Irenaeus
> is almost direct evidence while 20th century scholars
> are ONLY speculating.
>
> "Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson,
> Collier Books, P. 370 -384.
>
> Irenaeus and Tertullian also dared anyone who didn't
> believe them to check out the ancient churches and
> see if they were correct.
> Today, all you need to do is go to your local
> Bible Society and check out the ancient versions
> in Aramaic, Greek, Coptic(both Southern and Northern
> Egypt), Vetus Latin, and other ancient languages.
> Study to be approved, then let us reason, together.
>
> Jim
>

There are any number of ways of discussing the Bible and
Christianity - as to their validity and truthfulness.
I'd much prefer to discuss the ideas and beliefs themselves -
the information, instead of focusing only the word for word
accuracy debate.
eg. what happens when a person dies - what happens to the
spirit? What is the concept of life and death about?

And if you wish to seriously debate something word for word
from the bible, then I suggest the Book of Ezekiel, in which
the description Ezekiel gives for what he saw.
What did he describe?
There is a huge gap between then and now, and what was
described. I don't think christians have any idea of what
was described.

Harvey

Andreas H�feld wrote:

> Also sprach/Thus spake jwsheffield@satx.rr.com:
>
> >> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul)
> >> wasn't written until at least seventy to ninety years after the
> >> event.  Given the lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that
> >> whoever wrote the gospels ever witnessed those events or was even
> >> alive at the time.
> >
> >  You are quoting scholars from the 20th century, I am
> >  quoting Irenaeus of Lyons who heard Polycarp in his
> >  youth and Polycarp knew the Apostle John. So Irenaeus
> >  is almost direct evidence while 20th century scholars
> >  are ONLY speculating.
>
> What YOU do is speculating. 20th c scholars are usually
> aware of the grounds on which they base their historical
> judgements. Otherwise their colleagues would painfully
> show them where they were "speculating". Irenaios'
> statements OTOH are based on a mixture of hearsay and
> wishful thinking.
>
> Andreas

===>You cannot refute bible scholarship by citing
early Christian propaganda writers.

Libertarius wrote:

> 
> 
> Andreas H?feld wrote:
> 
>> Also sprach/Thus spake jwsheffield@satx.rr.com:
>>
>> >> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul)
>> >> wasn't written until at least seventy to ninety years after the
>> >> event.  Given the lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that
>> >> whoever wrote the gospels ever witnessed those events or was even
>> >> alive at the time.
>> >
>> >  You are quoting scholars from the 20th century, I am
>> >  quoting Irenaeus of Lyons who heard Polycarp in his
>> >  youth and Polycarp knew the Apostle John. So Irenaeus
>> >  is almost direct evidence while 20th century scholars
>> >  are ONLY speculating.
>>
>> What YOU do is speculating. 20th c scholars are usually
>> aware of the grounds on which they base their historical
>> judgements. Otherwise their colleagues would painfully
>> show them where they were "speculating". Irenaios'
>> statements OTOH are based on a mixture of hearsay and
>> wishful thinking.
>>
>> Andreas
> 
> ===>You cannot refute bible scholarship by citing
> early Christian propaganda writers.

Oh, so we are to selectively believe Christian writes, labeling the ones we
don't like as "propaganda" writers... If the early Christian writers give
evidence that refutes the bible, why ignore it? 
-- 
Sinister Midget & Roy Culley == Trolls for trying to silence with insults
rather than prove a point or admit to a lie.
DFS==Closet homo, why else does he give so many makeup tips to gay guys.

Libertarius wrote:

> ===>You cannot refute bible scholarship by citing
> early Christian propaganda writers.
> 
> 


Christ you know I love you.
Did you see I waved?
I believe in you and God
So tell me that I'm saved.

http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/jesuschristsuperstar/simonzealotes.htm

Ralph wrote:

> Libertarius wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Andreas H?feld wrote:
> >
> >> Also sprach/Thus spake jwsheffield@satx.rr.com:
> >>
> >> >> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul)
> >> >> wasn't written until at least seventy to ninety years after the
> >> >> event.  Given the lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that
> >> >> whoever wrote the gospels ever witnessed those events or was even
> >> >> alive at the time.
> >> >
> >> >  You are quoting scholars from the 20th century, I am
> >> >  quoting Irenaeus of Lyons who heard Polycarp in his
> >> >  youth and Polycarp knew the Apostle John. So Irenaeus
> >> >  is almost direct evidence while 20th century scholars
> >> >  are ONLY speculating.
> >>
> >> What YOU do is speculating. 20th c scholars are usually
> >> aware of the grounds on which they base their historical
> >> judgements. Otherwise their colleagues would painfully
> >> show them where they were "speculating". Irenaios'
> >> statements OTOH are based on a mixture of hearsay and
> >> wishful thinking.
> >>
> >> Andreas
> >
> > ===>You cannot refute bible scholarship by citing
> > early Christian propaganda writers.
>
> Oh, so we are to selectively believe Christian writes, labeling the ones we
> don't like as "propaganda" writers...

===>Of course not. They were ALL propaganda writers, especially
those included in the Bible.

Libertarius wrote:

> 
> 
> Ralph wrote:
> 
>> Libertarius wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Andreas H?feld wrote:
>> >
>> >> Also sprach/Thus spake jwsheffield@satx.rr.com:
>> >>
>> >> >> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul)
>> >> >> wasn't written until at least seventy to ninety years after the
>> >> >> event.  Given the lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that
>> >> >> whoever wrote the gospels ever witnessed those events or was even
>> >> >> alive at the time.
>> >> >
>> >> >  You are quoting scholars from the 20th century, I am
>> >> >  quoting Irenaeus of Lyons who heard Polycarp in his
>> >> >  youth and Polycarp knew the Apostle John. So Irenaeus
>> >> >  is almost direct evidence while 20th century scholars
>> >> >  are ONLY speculating.
>> >>
>> >> What YOU do is speculating. 20th c scholars are usually
>> >> aware of the grounds on which they base their historical
>> >> judgements. Otherwise their colleagues would painfully
>> >> show them where they were "speculating". Irenaios'
>> >> statements OTOH are based on a mixture of hearsay and
>> >> wishful thinking.
>> >>
>> >> Andreas
>> >
>> > ===>You cannot refute bible scholarship by citing
>> > early Christian propaganda writers.
>>
>> Oh, so we are to selectively believe Christian writes, labeling the ones
>> we don't like as "propaganda" writers...
> 
> ===>Of course not. They were ALL propaganda writers, especially
> those included in the Bible.

If you cannot use them to refute, then you can not use them to support.
-- 
Sinister Midget & Roy Culley == Trolls for trying to silence with insults
rather than prove a point or admit to a lie.
DFS==Closet homo, why else does he give so many makeup tips to gay guys.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:56:28 -0400, James Knott wrote:

> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul) wasn't
> written until at least seventy to ninety years after the event.  Given the
> lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that whoever wrote the
> gospels ever witnessed those events or was even alive at the time.

Hell, given *modern* lifespans it's pretty damn unlikely...as they were
supposedly fully grown adults with lives of their own at the times of the
events correct? That would mean what, 90 to 110 years of age, or even
older in some cases probably? What are the odds that *most* of these guys
would be around, and remember everything that happened? Even with
modern medicine that's a pretty tall tale there... Something fishy here. 

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:25:52 -0400, Priscilla H. Ballou wrote:

> In article <ws-dnQ4_qeIhJlffRVn-sA@rogers.com>,
>  James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
> 
>> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul) wasn't
>> written until at least seventy to ninety years after the event.  Given
>> the lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that whoever wrote the
>> gospels ever witnessed those events or was even alive at the time.
> 
> Paul wrote a gospel?  Sheesh!  I must have bought a defective Bible.
> Hmmmm.  All my Bibles are lacking the Gospel acc. to Paul!  I been robbed!

Actually, all the Apostles supposedly wrote a Gospel, but they were not
all included in what is today called the Bible. Mainly for political
reasons within the Church.

Priscilla H. Ballou wrote:

> In article <ws-dnQ4_qeIhJlffRVn-sA@rogers.com>,
>  James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
> 
>> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul) wasn't
>> written until at least seventy to ninety years after the event.  Given
>> the lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that whoever wrote the
>> gospels ever witnessed those events or was even alive at the time.
> 
> Paul wrote a gospel?  Sheesh!  I must have bought a defective Bible.
> Hmmmm.  All my Bibles are lacking the Gospel acc. to Paul!  I been
> robbed!
> 
> Priscilla

Here's but one reference that a quick Google search shows
http://www.nccg.org/008PArt-AssassPaul.html

And another curious link turned up
http://www.evangelicalpress.org/books/The_Gospel_Did_Paul_and_Jesus_Agree.htm

James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote in news:ws-dnQ4_qeIhJlffRVn-
sA@rogers.com:

> jwsheffield@satx.rr.com wrote:
> 
>> "So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
>> were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
>> disciple
>> and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what Peter
>> had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
>> the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the
>> Lord,
>> who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
>> while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
>> 
> 
> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul) wasn't
> written until at least seventy to ninety years after the event.  Given 
the
> lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that whoever wrote the 
gospels
> ever witnessed those events or was even alive at the time.
> 
> 

Um, if you're going to talk about this stuff, you should get the basics 
right.

Paul didn't write a gospel.

The first gospel to be written is generally considered to be Mark, in 60-
70 CE. The last was John, around 90 CE. Paul's letters were written more 
around 50 CE. So all were written well within living memory of Christ.

Also, thought average lifespans were less in the first century, if you 
stayed healthy and didn't get any infections you could easily live into 
your 70's.

    	Hugh


-- 
O Lord, your compassions never fail and your mercies are
new every morning: We give you thanks for giving our
sister Callie both relief from pain and hope of health
renewed. Continue in her, we pray, the good work you have
begun; that she, daily increasing in bodily strength, and
rejoicing in your goodness, may so order her life and conduct
that she may always think and do those things that please
you; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

No, I am quoting the actual writing
of Irenaeus of Lyons which you have
refused to read.
Your fallacy is called the argument from
authority.

 If you want to discuss this rationally,
you can read his main argument.

"Early Christian Fathers", Editor
Cyril C. Richardson, Collier Books, P. 370 - 384

Study to be approved, then let us reason,
together.

Jim

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in 
news:42CB532A.CF7ABCB2@Nothing_But_The.Truth:

> 
> 
> Andreas H�feld wrote:
> 
>> Also sprach/Thus spake jwsheffield@satx.rr.com:
>>
>> >> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul)
>> >> wasn't written until at least seventy to ninety years after the
>> >> event.  Given the lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that
>> >> whoever wrote the gospels ever witnessed those events or was even
>> >> alive at the time.
>> >
>> >  You are quoting scholars from the 20th century, I am
>> >  quoting Irenaeus of Lyons who heard Polycarp in his
>> >  youth and Polycarp knew the Apostle John. So Irenaeus
>> >  is almost direct evidence while 20th century scholars
>> >  are ONLY speculating.
>>
>> What YOU do is speculating. 20th c scholars are usually
>> aware of the grounds on which they base their historical
>> judgements. Otherwise their colleagues would painfully
>> show them where they were "speculating". Irenaios'
>> statements OTOH are based on a mixture of hearsay and
>> wishful thinking.
>>
>> Andreas
> 
> ===>You cannot refute bible scholarship by citing
> early Christian propaganda writers.

So what makes anti-bible scholarship dressed up in bible scholarship per se 
more valid than the earlier sources of information?

Or are you just trying to keep us guessing, AGAIN?



John Wadsworth
john4250@earthlink.net

Lets quote
 an author from the 2nd who heard Polycarp in his youth and
Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons.

"So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
disciple
and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what Peter

had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the

Lord,
who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."


 "Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson,
 Collier Books, P 370

  Why nshould I accept you a 21st century internet
 poster over Irenaeus? He was there you weren't, he
 knows, you don't.

 Jim

Andreas H=F6feld wrote:
> Also sprach/Thus spake jwsheffield@satx.rr.com:
>
> >> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul)
> >> wasn't written until at least seventy to ninety years after the
> >> event.  Given the lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that
> >> whoever wrote the gospels ever witnessed those events or was even
> >> alive at the time.
> >
> >  You are quoting scholars from the 20th century, I am
> >  quoting Irenaeus of Lyons who heard Polycarp in his
> >  youth and Polycarp knew the Apostle John. So Irenaeus
> >  is almost direct evidence while 20th century scholars
> >  are ONLY speculating.
>
> What YOU do is speculating. 20th c scholars are usually
> aware of the grounds on which they base their historical
> judgements. Otherwise their colleagues would painfully
> show them where they were "speculating". Irenaios'
> statements OTOH are based on a mixture of hearsay and
> wishful thinking.
>

 Your fallacy is called the argument from
 authority,
 Irenaeus and C.S. Lewis don't agree with you.
 One example C.S. Lewis points out that
 the writer of the Woman In Adultery
 writes down Jesus writting in the sand
 over a thousand years before the realistic
 novel comes into being. Read the argument
 from Irenaeus of Lyons circa 180 A.D. who
head Polycarp in his youth, and Polycarp knew
the Apostle John. Then explain why I should believe
you over Irenaeus and C.S. Lewis. Study to be approved,
 then let us reason together.

 Jim,

 Irenaeus's argument can be read in
  "Early Christian Fathers", edited by
   Cyril C. Richardson, Collier Books, P. 370 -384

jwsheffield@satx.rr.com wrote:

>  Your fallacy is called the argument from
>  authority,

"Jesus is just all right, oh yeaaaaaaa"

--Doobie Brothers

In article <1120695221.226635.267580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 
jwsheffield@satx.rr.com says...
>
>Lets quote
> an author from the 2nd who heard Polycarp in his youth and
>Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons.
>
>"So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
>were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
>disciple
>and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what Peter
>
>had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
>the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the
>
>Lord,
>who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
>while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
>
>
> "Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson,
> Collier Books, P 370
>
>  Why nshould I accept you a 21st century internet
> poster over Irenaeus? He was there you weren't, he
> knows, you don't.
>
> Jim
>


Why not go to a source, that actually was there?
Judas' account which is as follows from the Talmud Jmmanuel -
note the differences from the version you're familiar with,
see www.tjresearch.info
for any doubts and academic debates over this source...

                    Chapter 3
                  John the Baptist
 I.  In due course, John the Baptist came to the edge of the wilderness and 
preached at the banks
     of the Jordan.
 2.  John the Baptist preached of baptism in accordance with the old laws of 
god, according to
     which the way to knowledge was to be prepared.
 3.  He preached that god's laws shall be followed because he is the sole 
ruler of this human lineage.
 4.  He preached that above god, however, stands Creation, the source of the 
worlds, universes and
     all living creatures.
 5.  And so he taught that the genderless Creation is the mystery of all 
mysteries; death and life,
     light and darkness, being and non-being.
 6.  And so he taught once again that god, the lord and ruler of this human 
lineage and of those
     who travelled from afar, the celestial sons, holds Creation in high 
esteem.
 7.  All Judea and all the people of Jerusalem went forth to John the Baptist, 
acknowledging the
     wisdom of the old laws of god, and let themselves be baptized by him in 
the river Jordan.
 8.  John wore a garment made from camel's hair and a leather belt around his 
loins. His food
     consisted of locusts and wild honey.
 9.  While he was baptizing many of the people, many Pharisees and Sadducees 
came to him who
     humiliated him with malicious talk.
10.  But John the Baptist spoke, "You brood of vipers, who told you that you 
will escape from
     future wrath, once your false teachings are revealed?
II. "See to it that you bear righteous fruit of repentance and learn the 
truth.
12. "Turn away from the evil of your false teachings, which you carry out with 
arrogance and
     pursuant with your greed for power and fortune.
13. "Do not think just of saying to each other, 'We have Abraham as father.  
14. "I say to you, with his knowledge and his power, god is able to raise up 
children to Abraham
     out of these stones, because he has knowledge of the mystery of Creation.
15. "Already the axe has been laid at the root of the trees. Therefore, any 
tree that does not
     bring forth good fruit will be hewn down and thrown into the fire.
16. "You brood of vipers, in two times a thousand years you and your 
followers, who pursue false
     teachings out of your own arrogance in your greed for power and fortune, 
shall be vanquished and,
     on account of your lies, punished.
17. "So it shall be when humankind begins to comprehend, and when the chaff is 
separated from the grain.
18. "It will be at the time when your false teachings will be laughed at and 
humankind discovers
     the truth.
19. "This will come to pass when humankind builds singing lights and chariots 
of fire, with which
     they can escape into the cosmos, as is done by god and his followers, the 
celestial sons,
20. "namely those who taught us the wisdom and knowledge of Creation, 
21. "and who urged us to obey the laws of nature and live according to them.
22. "Oh you renegades, you brood of vipers, get away from this place, because 
you are impure and
     cursed in your false teachings.
23. "Get away from this place, because I can by my own accord baptize you into 
repentance only with
     water; but he who comes after me is stronger than I, and I am not worthy 
of removing his sandals.
     He will baptize you with the knowledge of the spirit and with the fire of 
truth.
24. "He has his winnowing fork in his hand; he will sweep his threshing floor 
and gather the wheat
     into his granary, but he will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire.
25. "The lie can never withstand the truth, which destroys evil in its fire." 
26.  As John the Baptist thus spoke, behold, Jmmanuel of Galilee then 
approached John at the Jordan,
     to be baptized by him.
27.  John, however, refused him and spoke, �It is I who need to be baptized by 
you because you possess
     greater knowledge than I. And you come to me?"
28.  But Jmmanuel answered him, "let it happen so now, because it is fitting 
for us to fulfill all
     justice, since we are both sons of the Earth."
29.  So John consented and baptized him.
30.  When Jmmanuel had been baptized, he soon came out of the water of the 
Jordan, and behold,
     a metallic light fell from the sky and rushed over the Jordan.
31.  Consequently they all fell on their faces and pressed them into the sand 
while a voice from
     the metallic light spoke:
32. "This is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased. He will be the king 
of truth, through
     which terrestrial humans shall rise as wise ones.
33.  Behold, after these words Jmmanuel entered into the metallic light, which 
climbed into the sky,
     surrounded by fire and smoke, and passed over the lifeless sea, as the 
singing of the metallic
     light soon faded away.
34.  After that, Jmmanuel was no longer seen for forty days and nights.


It is the ideas and information given, which will be the evidence in
itself whether this is plausible or not.
What references here to 'the Creation' is not towards 'God' nor any other
references...

Harvey

On 2005-07-06, Hugh Beyer <beyerxyzzy@acm.org> wrote:
> James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote in news:ws-dnQ4_qeIhJlffRVn-
> sA@rogers.com:
>
>> jwsheffield@satx.rr.com wrote:
[deletia]
>
> The first gospel to be written is generally considered to be Mark, in 60-
> 70 CE. The last was John, around 90 CE. Paul's letters were written more 
> around 50 CE. So all were written well within living memory of Christ.
>
> Also, thought average lifespans were less in the first century, if you 
> stayed healthy and didn't get any infections you could easily live into 
> your 70's.

	In those days, if you lived into your 70's you might be mistaken
for immortal. It was somewhat remarkable.


-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \

Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:
> In article <1120695221.226635.267580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> jwsheffield@satx.rr.com says...
> >
> >Lets quote
> > an author from the 2nd who heard Polycarp in his youth and
> >Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons.
> >
> >"So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
> >were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
> >disciple
> >and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what Peter
> >
> >had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
> >the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the
> >
> >Lord,
> >who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
> >while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
> >
> >
> > "Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson,
> > Collier Books, P 370
> >
> >  Why nshould I accept you a 21st century internet
> > poster over Irenaeus? He was there you weren't, he
> > knows, you don't.
> >
> > Jim
> >
>
>
> Why not go to a source, that actually was there?
> Judas' account which is as follows from the Talmud Jmmanuel -
> note the differences from the version you're familiar with,
> see www.tjresearch.info
> for any doubts and academic debates over this source...
>

  You didn't refute Irenaeus, and since Irenaeus traces to
  John the Apostle who was with John the Baptist and Jesus,
  he trumps your forged writting. Deal with real documation
  instead of ignoring it. Study to be approved, then let us
  reason together.

  Irenaeus's argument can be read in
  "Early Christian Fathers", edited by
   Cyril C. Richardson, Collier Books, P. 370 -384 

   Jim

James Knott wrote:
> roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> Can you explain to me how a man who supposedly performed miracles,...
> >> ... yet not a single written word by his contemporaries exists? All we
> >> have is stories written about this man decades after his death.
> >
> > Why you ignore the written accounts by his contemporaries I'm not sure.
> >  The suggestion that accounts written decades after the events should
> > be ignored would dispose of Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio and
> > Josephus as witnesses for all first century history.
>
> Whose contemporaries?  According to biblical scholars, there is no
> contemporary evidence of Christ.

I don't know who these 'biblical scholars' might be, since I rather
doubt that New Testament Studies as a discipline holds such a view --
if it does, I'd be interested to hear evidence to that effect.

But since the disciples of the apostles say otherwise, I'm not sure why
we should accept the opinion of people living 2000 years later.  On
what evidence can such a statement be based?

> If you're referring to others writting at the time of Tacitus,
> why are their sources any better than his, unless they have
> better provenance?  As for being witnesses, it's hard for someone such
> as Tacitus, to be a witness to events that supposedly happened a half
> century before he was born.

Consider on which historical sources first century history is based.
The reign and policies of Tiberius is overwhelmingly based on the
testimony of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio.  Other first century
sources merely supplement these.

But you have no reason to take the word of a (possibly uneducated)
poster.  Ask your classics department.

It is unreasonable to complain that a minor figure at the edge of the
Roman world is documented to no more than the same level as an emperor,
after all.  Christians did not become important in the ancient world
until around 200 AD, as far as I can tell.

> How do you know Tacitus was not simply passing on what he heard,
> from someone who was promoting the Christian cult.

We don't.  But we can always imagine arguments like this, as an excuse
to ignore the data, for any statement whatsoever in antiquity.
However, because it is so easy, we must not do this.  Our statements
must be restricted to those for which there is some definite evidence
in the historical record.  This suggestion is not so documented.  Any
other approach takes us straight to subjectivism, you see.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Lin=F8nutlin=F8nut@bone.com wrote:
> roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk poked his little head through the XP firewall an=
d said:
>
> >> The only rational conclusion anyone can have is that Jesus, as depicted
> >> in the NT, never existed.
> >
> > Either all the educated people in the world are irrational, or you are.
> > You'll pardon me if I doubt, on the basis of your post, that everyone
> > else is wrong.
>
> Epiphany!  Bill Gates was thinking "Windows New Testament"!
>
> And now, what we actually get is "Windows Old Testament", a malware
> disasters of Biblical proportions!

I'm not sure that there is enough evidence that Windows was designed,
rather than bodged.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

<jwsheffield@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1120576166.469209.31750@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> James Knott wrote:
> > roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > > One problem with usenet is that ignorance can infect even intelligent
> > > people.  Our knowledge of Jesus does not come from Josephus! -- he
> > > merely happens to confirm in general terms what we knew already.  We
> > > get our knowledge from the New Testament, which those who knew the
> > > authors tell us was written by people who knew Jesus and their
> > > associates.  Nor is this in a vaccuum, since the man founded an
> > > organisation which has left some 5000 pages of writing in the first 3
> > > centuries alone.
> > >
> >
> > According to biblical scholars, the first written reference to Christ,
was
> > written at least 70 - 90 years after the fact.  Given that that's about
> > twice the average life span, back in those days, it's highly unlikely
that
> > whoever wrote it ever witnessed anything claimed.  As for evidence, care
to
> > cite some, other than quotes that can be traced to the bible?  How is it
> > that King Herod could kill all those babies, without anyone recording
the
> > fact?  Why is there no contemporary record of Christ's followers and
> > miracles etc.?  Where is the evidence that he ever existed???  Also, if
you
> > care to do a bit of research on the bible's origin, you will find that
it
> > largely came from a bunch of parables, compiled and edited by a group
with
> > a specific agenda, who omitted certain inconvenient items and "enhanced"
> > others.  You will also find various versions of the bible over the
> > centuries, with various things added or removed.  For an example of
this,
> > compare the King James and Catholic bibles.   Which one is "correct"?
Why?
> >
>  You are quoting scholars from the 20th century. Lets quote
>  an aythor from the 2nd who heard Polycarp in his youth and
> Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons.
>
> "So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
> were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
> disciple
> and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what Peter
> had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
> the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the
> Lord,
> who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
> while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
>
>  "Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson,
>  Collier Books, P 370
>
>  As to your argument from silence, Ancient historians
>  often didn't mention the living Emperor because if he
>  didn't like what you wrote it could be dangerous for
>  your health.
>  The bigger argument from silence is why didn't the Romans
>  write a credible tome refuting Christianity? They had
>  Josepheus as a hostage.
>
>  If you read the different versions of the NT in Aramaic, Greek,
>  Coptic(both Northern and Southern Egypt), Vetus Latin, and
>  other ancient languages, you shall find small scribal differences,
>  but the same story of Jesus and his love. Irenaeus circa 180 A.D.
>  and Tetullian circa 200 A.D. challenged people in the
>  ancient world to check out the ancient churches to see that
>  was correct. Today, all you have to do is go to your blocal
>  Bible Society to check out the ancient versions.
>
>
>
> > As for ignorance, religion has been a great cause of that over the
> > centuries.  The church kept knowledge from all but the clergy and
royalty.
> > Also, ever wonder why the dark ages primarily affected the Christian
world?
> > Why was the arab world flourishing at that time, even though they also
> > experienced various "heathen" attacks, not to mention the crusades.
Take a
> > look at how Galeleo and Copernicus were persecuted by the church, for
> > daring to challenge long held beliefs.  There was even a bishop burn
alive
> > as a witch, for simply investigating magnetism.  History has repeatedly
> > shown that much of the ignorance over the centuries, right up to the
> > present, has been induced by the church.  Accepting religion means
requires
> > a closed mind, because it requires ignoring the reality around you.  A
real
> > cute example of this, was a few weeks ago, when that bride to be ran
away
> > from Georgia (IIRC).  The church minister claimed their prayers were
> > answered, when she turned up in New Mexico.  This ignores the fact, that
> > she bought the bus tickets two days earlier and made other arrangements
> > prior to running away.   It was a planned trip and the woman was in no
more
> > danger than anyone else on a cross country bus trip.  Yet to believe
that
> > minister, the prayers caused a miracle.  What a load of B.S.!
> >
> > Bottom line.  Religion is a delusion.
>
>  There were two major states founded on the "non deludion"
>  of non belief, Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. If that is
>  non delusion, I shall take the delusion.
>
> Jim
>
You forgot Pol Pot's Cambodia and Kim Il Sung's atheist proletarian paradise
in North Korea.  And those paragons of atheist virtue East Germany, Romania,
Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Albania.

"James Knott" <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:ws-dnQ4_qeIhJlffRVn-sA@rogers.com...
> jwsheffield@satx.rr.com wrote:
>
> > "So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
> > were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
> > disciple
> > and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what Peter
> > had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
> > the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the
> > Lord,
> > who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
> > while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
> >
>
> According to biblical scholars, the first of the gospels (Paul) wasn't
> written until at least seventy to ninety years after the event.  Given the
> lifespans of that time, it's highly unlikely that whoever wrote the
gospels
> ever witnessed those events or was even alive at the time.
>
What Biblical Scholars wrote that?  The genuine Pauline letters are commonly
dated to 50-60 A.D. Gosh, I don't recall any biblical scholars or ancient
historians who date  Paul's letters to 100 to 120 A.D.  (Wouldn't 100 to 120
A.D. be 70 to 90 years after 30 A.D.?  Besides, the Q sources are quite
likely older than Paul's letters.  Lots of historical and  literary evidence
for that too.

Tom P wrote:

>>  There were two major states founded on the "non deludion"
>>  of non belief, Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. If that is
>>  non delusion, I shall take the delusion.
>>
>> Jim
>>
> You forgot Pol Pot's Cambodia and Kim Il Sung's atheist proletarian
> paradise
> in North Korea.  And those paragons of atheist virtue East Germany,
> Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and
> Albania.

There have been many such "states" in the world.  Some with "religious"
leaders, some not.  Take a look at Iran or Afghanistan, when the Taliban
were running things.

Also, many of those in eastern Europe would have been raised in a
"Christian" country, prior to communism.  All that this proves is that
religion does not prevent such "leaders" from occurring.  Also, throughout
history, people have often been at risk, when challenging the official
religion.  Remember the Inquisition?  The various pogroms?  Religious
persectution throughout European history, for simply being in the wrong
Christian church?

James Knott wrote:
> Tom P wrote:
>
> >>  There were two major states founded on the "non deludion"
> >>  of non belief, Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. If that is
> >>  non delusion, I shall take the delusion.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> > You forgot Pol Pot's Cambodia and Kim Il Sung's atheist proletarian
> > paradise
> > in North Korea.  And those paragons of atheist virtue East Germany,
> > Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and
> > Albania.
>
> There have been many such "states" in the world.  Some with "religious"
> leaders, some not.  Take a look at Iran or Afghanistan, when the Taliban
> were running things.
>
> Also, many of those in eastern Europe would have been raised in a
> "Christian" country, prior to communism.  All that this proves is that
> religion does not prevent such "leaders" from occurring.  Also, throughout
> history, people have often been at risk, when challenging the official
> religion.  Remember the Inquisition?  The various pogroms?  Religious
> persectution throughout European history, for simply being in the wrong
> Christian church?


  I was born and raised in the state
of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations, founded by Roger
Williams, who wrote "The Bloudy
Tenet", that argued for religious
freedom for all. I would take
Rhode Island over the atheistic
Soviet Union, any day.

Jim

Christian and nonchristian ancient historians who referenced somebody
who was possibly Jesus are:

Origen
Tertullian
Cornelius? Tacitus
Suetonius
Flavius Josephus

jwsheffield@satx.rr.com wrote:

> I would take
> Rhode Island over the atheistic
> Soviet Union, any day.

The problems in the Soviet Union weren't caused by atheism.  They were
caused by a political system that didn't allow for human rights.  On the
other hand, we have a very religious country, called Iran, where rights are
likewise virtually non-existant.  Such rights or lack of them has nothing
to do with religion, but the fundamental system of government.  If you have
one that believes that citizens have no rights, such as in Stalin's Soviet
Union or Iran, then they won't have rights.  On the other hand, you've got
countries called democracies that allow citizen rights, including freedom
of religion (which includes freedom *FROM* religion).  However, what do you
think might happen to rights in U.S.A., if the "religious right" gets much
more power.  Then you can be sure that the U.S. will have an "official
religion" as evidenced by some attempts in southern states, to force
religion in the schools, courts etc.  Fortunately, the courts have been
able to stop (for the most part) that sort of thing.  What will happen if
the supreme court gets stuffed with bible thumpers?  You can be certain
that the rights of non-christians will soon be eroded, as they were in the
not so distant past.

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in 
news:1120785276.828359.101560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Christian and nonchristian ancient historians who referenced somebody
> who was possibly Jesus are:
> 
> Origen
> Tertullian
> Cornelius? Tacitus
> Suetonius
> Flavius Josephus


Could you PLEASE leave enough of the prior post to help us understand what 
you are talking about.  Otherwise, you give us just enough information to 
be confused.  What is your post answering here?



John Wadsworth
john4250@earthlink.net 

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:15:09 +0800, Luna Lane wrote
(in article <9204a577.0506281515.282c1960@posting.google.com>):

> I am a 2nd year CS xover student who is new to programming and the
> topic of Linux came up in class today because we are using Solaris and
> one student wanted to know if he could use open source tools for his
> assignments.
> We had a lengthy, if often spirited discussion over the plus and minus
> of Linux. My prof says that Linux is far too fragmented and that is
> what is holding it back along with a bad reputation for user
> unfriendliness and a total lack of shrinkwrap.
> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
> My prof is certainly no Windows lover (we use mostly Macs running OSX
> except in classes like this where we use Sun machines), but he warned
> us against using an operating system that is dying on the vine as a
> desktop alternative to Windows.
> We are all looking forward to Apple and Intel hardware because maybe
> we will now have the best of both worlds. An operating system that is
> solid, user friendly and inexpensive hardware.
> My prof's favorite saying is "Linux is free but yet Windows still has
> 98 percent of the market".
> 
> Maybe 2005 is the year of Linux?
> Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the year of Linux?
> Or maybe that was 2003?
> How about 2012?
> 
> Luna Lane



sorry is that luna lane , or loony lane.
trollll

fred wrote:
> Christian and nonchristian ancient historians who referenced somebody
> who was possibly Jesus are:
>
> Origen
> Tertullian
> Cornelius? Tacitus
> Suetonius
> Flavius Josephus

Tertullian isn't a historian tho, living around 200 AD.  I suspect
someone has had a slip of the pen somewhere for Pliny the Younger (whom
Tertullian quotes).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

"James Knott" <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:lYudncuX5fxEAFDfRVn-gA@rogers.com...
> Tom P wrote:
>
> >>  There were two major states founded on the "non deludion"
> >>  of non belief, Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. If that is
> >>  non delusion, I shall take the delusion.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> > You forgot Pol Pot's Cambodia and Kim Il Sung's atheist proletarian
> > paradise
> > in North Korea.  And those paragons of atheist virtue East Germany,
> > Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and
> > Albania.
>
> There have been many such "states" in the world.  Some with "religious"
> leaders, some not.  Take a look at Iran or Afghanistan, when the Taliban
> were running things.
>
Precisely my point.  Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and brutal than
Christians, Moslems, nature worshippers, Confucians, pagans, and believers,
or non-believers, or agnostics in any cultural system.  (Although I can't
think of a single example of members of the Society of Friends committing
mass murder.  Can you?)  Nor are atheists any less bloodthirsty than their
theist counterparts.  To me, it is apparent that all of us human beings
share common flaws, with the possible exception of the Quakers, that is..

> Also, many of those in eastern Europe would have been raised in a
> "Christian" country, prior to communism.  All that this proves is that
> religion does not prevent such "leaders" from occurring.

Nor does one being reared in atheism prevent one from growing up into a
bloodthirsty thug.  What's your point?

> Also, throughout
> history, people have often been at risk, when challenging the official
> religion.  Remember the Inquisition?  The various pogroms?  Religious
> persectution throughout European history, for simply being in the wrong
> Christian church?
>
Oh, but I do recall the pogroms, inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades (even
the lesser known ones such as that called by Pope Martin V against Bohemia
during the 15th century), persecutions, and a slew of other Christian
atrocities and blood baths.  Nevertheless, it is a fact that atheists
murdered far more people in the 20th century alone than every Christian thug
in history since Christianity began.  Basic historical demographics, readily
available in hundreds, if not thousands of sources.  So it seems to me that
people living in nations governed by atheists during the 20th century were
far more at risk than people living in places governed by Christians at any
time.
>

Tom P wrote:
> "James Knott" <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:lYudncuX5fxEAFDfRVn-gA@rogers.com...
> > Tom P wrote:
> >
> > >>  There were two major states founded on the "non deludion"
> > >>  of non belief, Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. If that is
> > >>  non delusion, I shall take the delusion.
> > >>
> > >> Jim
> > >>
> > > You forgot Pol Pot's Cambodia and Kim Il Sung's atheist proletarian
> > > paradise
> > > in North Korea.  And those paragons of atheist virtue East Germany,
> > > Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and
> > > Albania.
> >
> > There have been many such "states" in the world.  Some with "religious"
> > leaders, some not.  Take a look at Iran or Afghanistan, when the Taliban
> > were running things.
> >
> Precisely my point.  Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and brutal than
> Christians, Moslems, nature worshippers, Confucians, pagans, and believers,
> or non-believers, or agnostics in any cultural system.  (Although I can't
> think of a single example of members of the Society of Friends committing
> mass murder.  Can you?)  Nor are atheists any less bloodthirsty than their
> theist counterparts.  To me, it is apparent that all of us human beings
> share common flaws, with the possible exception of the Quakers, that is..
>
> > Also, many of those in eastern Europe would have been raised in a
> > "Christian" country, prior to communism.  All that this proves is that
> > religion does not prevent such "leaders" from occurring.
>
> Nor does one being reared in atheism prevent one from growing up into a
> bloodthirsty thug.  What's your point?
>
> > Also, throughout
> > history, people have often been at risk, when challenging the official
> > religion.  Remember the Inquisition?  The various pogroms?  Religious
> > persectution throughout European history, for simply being in the wrong
> > Christian church?
> >
> Oh, but I do recall the pogroms, inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades (even
> the lesser known ones such as that called by Pope Martin V against Bohemia
> during the 15th century), persecutions, and a slew of other Christian
> atrocities and blood baths.  Nevertheless, it is a fact that atheists
> murdered far more people in the 20th century alone than every Christian thug
> in history since Christianity began.  Basic historical demographics, readily
> available in hundreds, if not thousands of sources.  So it seems to me that
> people living in nations governed by atheists during the 20th century were
> far more at risk than people living in places governed by Christians at any
> time.
> >

 I notice you didn't speak about Roger Williams
and the founding of Rhode Island. The first state to
declare religious freedom for all, Have you read
"The Bloudy Tenet", of course not. All you are
doing logically is using the fallacy "non sequitur".
Study to be approved, then let us reason,together.

Jim

"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> wrote in
news:42d012cd$0$5749$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com: 

<Snip>

> Precisely my point.  Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and brutal than
> Christians, Moslems, nature worshippers, Confucians, pagans, and
> believers, or non-believers, or agnostics in any cultural system. 
> (Although I can't think of a single example of members of the Society
> of Friends committing mass murder.  Can you?)  Nor are atheists any
> less bloodthirsty than their theist counterparts.  To me, it is
> apparent that all of us human beings share common flaws, with the
> possible exception of the Quakers, that is.. 
> 
>> Also, many of those in eastern Europe would have been raised in a
>> "Christian" country, prior to communism.  All that this proves is
>> that religion does not prevent such "leaders" from occurring.
> 
> Nor does one being reared in atheism prevent one from growing up into
> a bloodthirsty thug.  What's your point?
> 
>> Also, throughout
>> history, people have often been at risk, when challenging the
>> official religion.  Remember the Inquisition?  The various pogroms? 
>> Religious persectution throughout European history, for simply being
>> in the wrong Christian church?
>>
> Oh, but I do recall the pogroms, inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades
> (even the lesser known ones such as that called by Pope Martin V
> against Bohemia during the 15th century), persecutions, and a slew of
> other Christian atrocities and blood baths.  Nevertheless, it is a
> fact that atheists murdered far more people in the 20th century alone
> than every Christian thug in history since Christianity began.  Basic
> historical demographics, readily available in hundreds, if not
> thousands of sources.  So it seems to me that people living in nations
> governed by atheists during the 20th century were far more at risk
> than people living in places governed by Christians at any time.

Hey Tom,

This time you got me confused coming and going.  You start off saying: 

"Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and brutal than Christians, Moslems, 
nature worshippers, ... (etc.);"

and then you say:

". . .it is a fact that atheists murdered far more people in the 20th 
century alone than every Christian thug in history since Christianity 
began."  

How can atheists be no more bloodthirsty than religionists when atheists 
have shed more blood in one century than religionists have ever shed?  
Doesn't the latter statistic contradict the first statement just a little 
bit?

BTW - you may or may not agree, but I do not consider those who shed blood 
in the name of Jesus Christ to have been Christians at all.  I exclude them 
because: 1) neither Jesus nor any New Testament writer advocates violence 
and murder as a means of preserving and promoting Christianity; and 2) the 
New Testament, itself, says in numerous places that those who practice 
unrighteousness and hate their brother are not of God, and will not have 
eternal life.  (See Romans 1:29-31; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 John 3:10,15.)  
Even Jesus said that one calls his brother a fool will be liable to the 
fires of hell.  (Matthew 5:21-22.)  I would concede the opposite view only 
if the New Testament taught violence as a means of bringing forth the 
kingdom; but it doesn't.





John Wadsworth
john4250@value.net

"James Knott" <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:ysGdnavEteuqQVDfRVn-rA@rogers.com...
> jwsheffield@satx.rr.com wrote:
>
> > I would take
> > Rhode Island over the atheistic
> > Soviet Union, any day.
>
> The problems in the Soviet Union weren't caused by atheism.  They were
> caused by a political system that didn't allow for human rights.  On the
> other hand, we have a very religious country, called Iran, where rights
are
> likewise virtually non-existant.  Such rights or lack of them has nothing
> to do with religion, but the fundamental system of government.  If you
have
> one that believes that citizens have no rights, such as in Stalin's Soviet
> Union or Iran, then they won't have rights.  On the other hand, you've got
> countries called democracies that allow citizen rights, including freedom
> of religion (which includes freedom *FROM* religion).  However, what do
you
> think might happen to rights in U.S.A., if the "religious right" gets much
> more power.  Then you can be sure that the U.S. will have an "official
> religion" as evidenced by some attempts in southern states, to force
> religion in the schools, courts etc.  Fortunately, the courts have been
> able to stop (for the most part) that sort of thing.  What will happen if
> the supreme court gets stuffed with bible thumpers?  You can be certain
> that the rights of non-christians will soon be eroded, as they were in the
> not so distant past.
>
How come the Nobel Laureates, Sovietologists, the few former inmates of the
Gulag who survived, historians, scholars of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, and
penologists have missed all that?

Had you actually read in the various disciplines mentioned above, you would
know that atheism is right at the core of materialism.  And materialism is
at the core of Stalinism.  When you build a system of government on
materialism and economic determinism, bad things happen.  Because human
rights are not factors in materialism and economic determinism.  Do you know
the history of the development of Marxism? Was atheism or the dialectic or
materialism or the economic determinism of history first?

And, no, the religious right should not retain power in the USA.

And yes, freedom of religion necessitates freedom from religion.

So how do those excuse or mitigate the fact that atheists committed mass
murder on a scale unprecedented in human history?  Do you really think their
motivation matters?  See, I kind of think mass murder is mass murder is mass
murder and it is always heinous.  Motivation doesn't matter.  It doesn't
matter what the theist position of the mass murderer was.

You atheists waffle and obfuscate on this, and I find your intellectual
gymnastics amusing.  But those don't change the fact that atheists were the
most proficient mass murderers in human history.
>

<jwsheffield@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1120935293.281345.202570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Tom P wrote:
> > "James Knott" <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:lYudncuX5fxEAFDfRVn-gA@rogers.com...
> > > Tom P wrote:
> > >
> > > >>  There were two major states founded on the "non deludion"
> > > >>  of non belief, Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. If that is
> > > >>  non delusion, I shall take the delusion.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jim
> > > >>
> > > > You forgot Pol Pot's Cambodia and Kim Il Sung's atheist proletarian
> > > > paradise
> > > > in North Korea.  And those paragons of atheist virtue East Germany,
> > > > Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and
> > > > Albania.
> > >
> > > There have been many such "states" in the world.  Some with
"religious"
> > > leaders, some not.  Take a look at Iran or Afghanistan, when the
Taliban
> > > were running things.
> > >
> > Precisely my point.  Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and brutal than
> > Christians, Moslems, nature worshippers, Confucians, pagans, and
believers,
> > or non-believers, or agnostics in any cultural system.  (Although I
can't
> > think of a single example of members of the Society of Friends
committing
> > mass murder.  Can you?)  Nor are atheists any less bloodthirsty than
their
> > theist counterparts.  To me, it is apparent that all of us human beings
> > share common flaws, with the possible exception of the Quakers, that
is..
> >
> > > Also, many of those in eastern Europe would have been raised in a
> > > "Christian" country, prior to communism.  All that this proves is that
> > > religion does not prevent such "leaders" from occurring.
> >
> > Nor does one being reared in atheism prevent one from growing up into a
> > bloodthirsty thug.  What's your point?
> >
> > > Also, throughout
> > > history, people have often been at risk, when challenging the official
> > > religion.  Remember the Inquisition?  The various pogroms?  Religious
> > > persectution throughout European history, for simply being in the
wrong
> > > Christian church?
> > >
> > Oh, but I do recall the pogroms, inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades
(even
> > the lesser known ones such as that called by Pope Martin V against
Bohemia
> > during the 15th century), persecutions, and a slew of other Christian
> > atrocities and blood baths.  Nevertheless, it is a fact that atheists
> > murdered far more people in the 20th century alone than every Christian
thug
> > in history since Christianity began.  Basic historical demographics,
readily
> > available in hundreds, if not thousands of sources.  So it seems to me
that
> > people living in nations governed by atheists during the 20th century
were
> > far more at risk than people living in places governed by Christians at
any
> > time.
> > >
>
>  I notice you didn't speak about Roger Williams
> and the founding of Rhode Island. The first state to
> declare religious freedom for all, Have you read
> "The Bloudy Tenet", of course not. All you are
> doing logically is using the fallacy "non sequitur".
> Study to be approved, then let us reason,together.
>
> Jim
>
It might surprise you what I have and have not read. I have not read all of
the tome you mention, but I have read in it.  And I do admire Roger
Williams, for he surely expressed lofty ideals.  But did that religious
liberty Williams preached at Providence Plantation apply to everyone?  I
think not.  More importantly, the historical record left by Roger Williams
indicates that his humanitarianism and ideals of liberty of conscience were
not quite universal.  Were atheists, Catholics, and Jews welcome in
Providence Plantation?  How about the shamanism practiced by the local
American Indians?  I think Roger Williams worked a good part of his life
trying to eliminate the native religious beliefs.  Or do you believe my
assessment is incorrect?  Like most white folks in the New World, Roger
Williams' notions of liberty only applied to some other white people.  And i
deals of what constitutes the boundaries of liberty of conscience have
certainly evolved in the last 4 centuries.

King Phillip's War was the acid test for 17th century New England ideals of
liberty. And Roger Williams did not acquit himself with all of the Christian
charity and Lockean liberalism certain people claim for him.  Didn't Roger
Williams write as early as 1654 that the choice facing New England was
between the, "Glorious Conversion" or "the Unnecessary Warrs and cruell
Destructions" of the Indians?  Yes, he did write that in a letter of October
16, 1854.  Look it up.  Or don't you think the same Roger Williams who wrote
"The Bloudy Tenet" wrote these words?  "[Indians] had forgot they were
mankind, and ran about the Countrie like Wolves tearing and devouring the
Innocent, and peacable."  (Letter from Roger Williams to Robert Williams,
April 1, 1676)  Or again, "[Indians] having lost the true and living God
their maker, have created out of the nothing of their owne inventions many
false and fained Gods and Creators."  (Cited in R. F. Berkhofer, "The White
Man's Indian," New York:  Vintage Books, 1979, page 37.)  What was his
position during King Philip's War? He sided with the English colonists who
massacred Indians.  And what happened to the native population of the
Providence Plantation?  Mostly murdered or exiled.  Have you read the answer
Roger Williams gave to certain Narragansett Indians when they asked him why
he sided with Plymouth Plantation and Massachusetts Bay colony against them
during King Phillip's War?  It makes for interesting reading.  You can find
it in a letter from Roger Williams to John Winthrop, Jr., dated June 25,
1675.

May I so bold as to suggest that Marx and Engels began from the loftiest of
principles and a deep concern for suffering humanity, as did Roger Williams
and tens of thousands of other Christians?  But both Christians and atheists
tend to get good ideas all screwed up and end up murdering the very people
they are trying to save.  Roger Williams included.

"J.W." <J.W.@hw61.com> wrote in message
news:Xns968E7BEE8E87Ahohn@207.217.125.201...
> "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> wrote in
> news:42d012cd$0$5749$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
>
> <Snip>
>
> > Precisely my point.  Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and brutal than
> > Christians, Moslems, nature worshippers, Confucians, pagans, and
> > believers, or non-believers, or agnostics in any cultural system.
> > (Although I can't think of a single example of members of the Society
> > of Friends committing mass murder.  Can you?)  Nor are atheists any
> > less bloodthirsty than their theist counterparts.  To me, it is
> > apparent that all of us human beings share common flaws, with the
> > possible exception of the Quakers, that is..
> >
> >> Also, many of those in eastern Europe would have been raised in a
> >> "Christian" country, prior to communism.  All that this proves is
> >> that religion does not prevent such "leaders" from occurring.
> >
> > Nor does one being reared in atheism prevent one from growing up into
> > a bloodthirsty thug.  What's your point?
> >
> >> Also, throughout
> >> history, people have often been at risk, when challenging the
> >> official religion.  Remember the Inquisition?  The various pogroms?
> >> Religious persectution throughout European history, for simply being
> >> in the wrong Christian church?
> >>
> > Oh, but I do recall the pogroms, inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades
> > (even the lesser known ones such as that called by Pope Martin V
> > against Bohemia during the 15th century), persecutions, and a slew of
> > other Christian atrocities and blood baths.  Nevertheless, it is a
> > fact that atheists murdered far more people in the 20th century alone
> > than every Christian thug in history since Christianity began.  Basic
> > historical demographics, readily available in hundreds, if not
> > thousands of sources.  So it seems to me that people living in nations
> > governed by atheists during the 20th century were far more at risk
> > than people living in places governed by Christians at any time.
>
> Hey Tom,
>
> This time you got me confused coming and going.  You start off saying:
>
> "Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and brutal than Christians, Moslems,
> nature worshippers, ... (etc.);"
>
> and then you say:
>
> ". . .it is a fact that atheists murdered far more people in the 20th
> century alone than every Christian thug in history since Christianity
> began."
>
> How can atheists be no more bloodthirsty than religionists when atheists
> have shed more blood in one century than religionists have ever shed?
> Doesn't the latter statistic contradict the first statement just a little
> bit?
>
Easily explained.  By the 20th century mass murder became industrialized.
The techniques used in the 20th century to commit mass murder were far more
efficient than those of previous centuries.  I do not doubt for a moment
that Pope Martin V or Richard I or Luther or Calvin would have used heavy
bomber raids, Zyklon B, machine guns, and every other modern killing device
without so much as a second thought had they been available. The 20th
century atheists were simply more technically proficient.  Remember that it
was those good Christian Englishmen who invented the concentration camp for
the elderly, women, and children who had the temerity to oppose them, not
the atheists or the Nazis or the Moslems or the Mongols or the Savages of
the New World.

> BTW - you may or may not agree, but I do not consider those who shed blood
> in the name of Jesus Christ to have been Christians at all.  I exclude
them
> because: 1) neither Jesus nor any New Testament writer advocates violence
> and murder as a means of preserving and promoting Christianity; and 2) the
> New Testament, itself, says in numerous places that those who practice
> unrighteousness and hate their brother are not of God, and will not have
> eternal life.  (See Romans 1:29-31; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 John 3:10,15.)
> Even Jesus said that one calls his brother a fool will be liable to the
> fires of hell.  (Matthew 5:21-22.)  I would concede the opposite view only
> if the New Testament taught violence as a means of bringing forth the
> kingdom; but it doesn't.
>
I rather believe those mass murderers failed to follow Jesus.  These men
were certainly adherents to various of the Christian religions by every
standard during the time they lived.  I think there is Jesus, then there is
Christ, and then there are the movements that became Christianity and
promptly began feuding, bickering, and calling one another heretics before
the Kingdom of God movement of Jesus was even a century old.  And that
ultimately resolved itself in Christians of one persuasion murdering
Christians of other persuasions.  Not exactly what Jesus had in mind, I
fear.  Yet another example of people taking really great ideas and screwing
them up.  Just my opinion.  I fear I am not very orthodox.  Guess that makes
me a heretic.  I would have been burned for my faith in 17th century North
Germany by the Lutherans, or 15th century Spain by the Catholics, or 16th
century Geneva by Calvinists, or 16th century Anglicans in England.

I agree insofar as Jesus never proclaimed murder as a tool for
prosletyzation.  Jesus had it right.  His followers got it wrong.
Tragically so in some cases.

"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42d06901$0$5749$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "J.W." <J.W.@hw61.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns968E7BEE8E87Ahohn@207.217.125.201...
> > "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:42d012cd$0$5749$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
> >
> > <Snip>
> >
> > > Precisely my point.  Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and brutal than
> > > Christians, Moslems, nature worshippers, Confucians, pagans, and
> > > believers, or non-believers, or agnostics in any cultural system.
> > > (Although I can't think of a single example of members of the Society
> > > of Friends committing mass murder.  Can you?)  Nor are atheists any
> > > less bloodthirsty than their theist counterparts.  To me, it is
> > > apparent that all of us human beings share common flaws, with the
> > > possible exception of the Quakers, that is..
> > >
> > >> Also, many of those in eastern Europe would have been raised in a
> > >> "Christian" country, prior to communism.  All that this proves is
> > >> that religion does not prevent such "leaders" from occurring.
> > >
> > > Nor does one being reared in atheism prevent one from growing up into
> > > a bloodthirsty thug.  What's your point?
> > >
> > >> Also, throughout
> > >> history, people have often been at risk, when challenging the
> > >> official religion.  Remember the Inquisition?  The various pogroms?
> > >> Religious persectution throughout European history, for simply being
> > >> in the wrong Christian church?
> > >>
> > > Oh, but I do recall the pogroms, inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades
> > > (even the lesser known ones such as that called by Pope Martin V
> > > against Bohemia during the 15th century), persecutions, and a slew of
> > > other Christian atrocities and blood baths.  Nevertheless, it is a
> > > fact that atheists murdered far more people in the 20th century alone
> > > than every Christian thug in history since Christianity began.  Basic
> > > historical demographics, readily available in hundreds, if not
> > > thousands of sources.  So it seems to me that people living in nations
> > > governed by atheists during the 20th century were far more at risk
> > > than people living in places governed by Christians at any time.
> >
> > Hey Tom,
> >
> > This time you got me confused coming and going.  You start off saying:
> >
> > "Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and brutal than Christians, Moslems,
> > nature worshippers, ... (etc.);"
> >
> > and then you say:
> >
> > ". . .it is a fact that atheists murdered far more people in the 20th
> > century alone than every Christian thug in history since Christianity
> > began."
> >
> > How can atheists be no more bloodthirsty than religionists when atheists
> > have shed more blood in one century than religionists have ever shed?
> > Doesn't the latter statistic contradict the first statement just a
little
> > bit?
> >
> Easily explained.  By the 20th century mass murder became industrialized.
> The techniques used in the 20th century to commit mass murder were far
more
> efficient than those of previous centuries.  I do not doubt for a moment
> that Pope Martin V or Richard I or Luther or Calvin would have used heavy
> bomber raids, Zyklon B, machine guns, and every other modern killing
device
> without so much as a second thought had they been available. The 20th
> century atheists were simply more technically proficient.  Remember that
it
> was those good Christian Englishmen who invented the concentration camp
for
> the elderly, women, and children who had the temerity to oppose them, not
> the atheists or the Nazis or the Moslems or the Mongols or the Savages of
> the New World.
>
> > BTW - you may or may not agree, but I do not consider those who shed
blood
> > in the name of Jesus Christ to have been Christians at all.  I exclude
> them
> > because: 1) neither Jesus nor any New Testament writer advocates
violence
> > and murder as a means of preserving and promoting Christianity; and 2)
the
> > New Testament, itself, says in numerous places that those who practice
> > unrighteousness and hate their brother are not of God, and will not have
> > eternal life.  (See Romans 1:29-31; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 John 3:10,15.)
> > Even Jesus said that one calls his brother a fool will be liable to the
> > fires of hell.  (Matthew 5:21-22.)  I would concede the opposite view
only
> > if the New Testament taught violence as a means of bringing forth the
> > kingdom; but it doesn't.
> >
> I rather believe those mass murderers failed to follow Jesus.  These men
> were certainly adherents to various of the Christian religions by every
> standard during the time they lived.  I think there is Jesus, then there
is
> Christ, and then there are the movements that became Christianity and
> promptly began feuding, bickering, and calling one another heretics before
> the Kingdom of God movement of Jesus was even a century old.  And that
> ultimately resolved itself in Christians of one persuasion murdering
> Christians of other persuasions.  Not exactly what Jesus had in mind, I
> fear.  Yet another example of people taking really great ideas and
screwing
> them up.  Just my opinion.  I fear I am not very orthodox.  Guess that
makes
> me a heretic.  I would have been burned for my faith in 17th century North
> Germany by the Lutherans, or 15th century Spain by the Catholics, or 16th
> century Geneva by Calvinists, or 16th century Anglicans in England.
>
> I agree insofar as Jesus never proclaimed murder as a tool for
> prosletyzation.  Jesus had it right.  His followers got it wrong.
> Tragically so in some cases.
>

If Jesus existed and the gospels are to be taken as a reliable source of his
teachings, there are a few passages where he promises death and destruction
to all cities which do not welcome his disciples.


 "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence,
shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I
say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day
of judgment, than for that city."

regards
Milan

"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3jbghbFp1j4pU1@individual.net:

<Snip>

> 
> If Jesus existed and the gospels are to be taken as a reliable source
> of his teachings, there are a few passages where he promises death and
> destruction to all cities which do not welcome his disciples.
> 
> 
>  "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart
>  thence, 
> shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.
> Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and
> Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."

Yeah, right.  Did you see the "day of judgment" part?  That is not to occur 
in this age.  It is to occur in the hereafter when Jesus returns in 
Judgment.  No one in the New Testament has ever advocated death and 
destruction as a means of furthering Jesus' kingdom before his return.





John Wadsworth
john4250@earthlink.net

"J.W." <J.W.@hw61.com> wrote in message
news:Xns968ED6FBFFEEFhohn@207.217.125.201...
> "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3jbghbFp1j4pU1@individual.net:
>
> <Snip>
>
> >
> > If Jesus existed and the gospels are to be taken as a reliable source
> > of his teachings, there are a few passages where he promises death and
> > destruction to all cities which do not welcome his disciples.
> >
> >
> >  "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart
> >  thence,
> > shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.
> > Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and
> > Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
>
> Yeah, right.  Did you see the "day of judgment" part?  That is not to
occur
> in this age.  It is to occur in the hereafter when Jesus returns in
> Judgment.  No one in the New Testament has ever advocated death and
> destruction as a means of furthering Jesus' kingdom before his return.
>

Ah, if it happens later it doesnt count. That's fine then.

regards
Milan

"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3jd0p8Fpc46sU1@individual.net:

<Snip>

>> Yeah, right.  Did you see the "day of judgment" part?  That is not to
> occur
>> in this age.  It is to occur in the hereafter when Jesus returns in
>> Judgment.  No one in the New Testament has ever advocated death and
>> destruction as a means of furthering Jesus' kingdom before his return.
>>
> 
> Ah, if it happens later it doesnt count. That's fine then.
> 
> regards
> Milan

That's right, it is.  It is "fine then," as you put it, because it is 
inflicted on the "day of judgment" as PUNISHMENT for wickedness.

Why do you marvel and/or mock at this?  Human societies grant governments 
the power to punish men.  Is the death penalty an unusual punishment for 
murder?  Is not imprisonment in jail or prison a common punishment for the 
crimes of kidnapping and false imprisonment?

Then how or why would you deprive God of the power to punish the wicked?  
How could God be just if he did not punish the wicked - especially for 
those who had no earthly punishment for their evil?  

Jesus has the role of judge of the living and the dead when he returns in 
his glory.  For those who have done his and his Father's will, there will 
be the reward of eternal life.  For those who have lived in rebellion 
against him, there will be eternal punishment.  That is what Jesus was 
talking about in the passage that you cited.

That does not change the fact that Jesus did not, and does not, condone 
violence and destruction as the means of bringing forth his kingdom.  The 
Bible is very clear on that point - as I have already explained.  You are 
talking about something very different.




John Wadsworth
john4250@earthlink.net

Point well taken.  I'm using various options of the reader I am using
and will take your concern into consideration for future posts.

begin  In <1120319280.957613.34300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, on
07/02/2005
   at 08:48 AM, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk said:

>We get our knowledge from the New Testament, which those who knew the
>authors tell us was written by people who knew Jesus and their 
>associates. 

Really? What contemporaneous documents do you have to support that
claim?

>since the man founded

No. The man,  if he existed at all, was safely dead before the
organization was founded.

>Instead they work out what sort of criteria the evidence will not 
>pass, and demand that.

You mean like insisting on original documents and doing Carbon dating
to authenticate their antiquity?

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

begin  In <1120479255.414250.187070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, on
07/04/2005
   at 05:14 AM, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk said:

>Either all the educated people in the world are irrational, or you
>are.

ROTF,LMAO! That ad hominem dog won't hunt. Plenty of educated people
agree with Roy. That doesn't, by itself, prove him write, but it does
prove that you are either ignorant or lying.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

begin  In <1120576166.469209.31750@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, on
07/05/2005
   at 08:09 AM, jwsheffield@satx.rr.com said:

> If you read the different versions of the NT in Aramaic, Greek,
> Coptic(both Northern and Southern Egypt), Vetus Latin, and
> other ancient languages, you shall find small scribal differences,
> but the same story of Jesus and his love.

Proving only that they came from a common sourc e, not that the common
source was truthful.

> There were two major states founded on the "non deludion"
> of non belief, Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. If that is
> non delusion, I shall take the delusion.

Then perhaps you should read up on how the Christian states treated
those who were not Christians; many were less enlightened than Stalin.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3jbghbFp1j4pU1@individual.net...
>
> "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:42d06901$0$5749$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >
> > "J.W." <J.W.@hw61.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns968E7BEE8E87Ahohn@207.217.125.201...
> > > "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> wrote in
> > > news:42d012cd$0$5749$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
> > >
> > > <Snip>
> > >
> > > > Precisely my point.  Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and brutal
than
> > > > Christians, Moslems, nature worshippers, Confucians, pagans, and
> > > > believers, or non-believers, or agnostics in any cultural system.
> > > > (Although I can't think of a single example of members of the
Society
> > > > of Friends committing mass murder.  Can you?)  Nor are atheists any
> > > > less bloodthirsty than their theist counterparts.  To me, it is
> > > > apparent that all of us human beings share common flaws, with the
> > > > possible exception of the Quakers, that is..
> > > >
> > > >> Also, many of those in eastern Europe would have been raised in a
> > > >> "Christian" country, prior to communism.  All that this proves is
> > > >> that religion does not prevent such "leaders" from occurring.
> > > >
> > > > Nor does one being reared in atheism prevent one from growing up
into
> > > > a bloodthirsty thug.  What's your point?
> > > >
> > > >> Also, throughout
> > > >> history, people have often been at risk, when challenging the
> > > >> official religion.  Remember the Inquisition?  The various pogroms?
> > > >> Religious persectution throughout European history, for simply
being
> > > >> in the wrong Christian church?
> > > >>
> > > > Oh, but I do recall the pogroms, inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades
> > > > (even the lesser known ones such as that called by Pope Martin V
> > > > against Bohemia during the 15th century), persecutions, and a slew
of
> > > > other Christian atrocities and blood baths.  Nevertheless, it is a
> > > > fact that atheists murdered far more people in the 20th century
alone
> > > > than every Christian thug in history since Christianity began.
Basic
> > > > historical demographics, readily available in hundreds, if not
> > > > thousands of sources.  So it seems to me that people living in
nations
> > > > governed by atheists during the 20th century were far more at risk
> > > > than people living in places governed by Christians at any time.
> > >
> > > Hey Tom,
> > >
> > > This time you got me confused coming and going.  You start off saying:
> > >
> > > "Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and brutal than Christians,
Moslems,
> > > nature worshippers, ... (etc.);"
> > >
> > > and then you say:
> > >
> > > ". . .it is a fact that atheists murdered far more people in the 20th
> > > century alone than every Christian thug in history since Christianity
> > > began."
> > >
> > > How can atheists be no more bloodthirsty than religionists when
atheists
> > > have shed more blood in one century than religionists have ever shed?
> > > Doesn't the latter statistic contradict the first statement just a
> little
> > > bit?
> > >
> > Easily explained.  By the 20th century mass murder became
industrialized.
> > The techniques used in the 20th century to commit mass murder were far
> more
> > efficient than those of previous centuries.  I do not doubt for a moment
> > that Pope Martin V or Richard I or Luther or Calvin would have used
heavy
> > bomber raids, Zyklon B, machine guns, and every other modern killing
> device
> > without so much as a second thought had they been available. The 20th
> > century atheists were simply more technically proficient.  Remember that
> it
> > was those good Christian Englishmen who invented the concentration camp
> for
> > the elderly, women, and children who had the temerity to oppose them,
not
> > the atheists or the Nazis or the Moslems or the Mongols or the Savages
of
> > the New World.
> >
> > > BTW - you may or may not agree, but I do not consider those who shed
> blood
> > > in the name of Jesus Christ to have been Christians at all.  I exclude
> > them
> > > because: 1) neither Jesus nor any New Testament writer advocates
> violence
> > > and murder as a means of preserving and promoting Christianity; and 2)
> the
> > > New Testament, itself, says in numerous places that those who practice
> > > unrighteousness and hate their brother are not of God, and will not
have
> > > eternal life.  (See Romans 1:29-31; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 John
3:10,15.)
> > > Even Jesus said that one calls his brother a fool will be liable to
the
> > > fires of hell.  (Matthew 5:21-22.)  I would concede the opposite view
> only
> > > if the New Testament taught violence as a means of bringing forth the
> > > kingdom; but it doesn't.
> > >
> > I rather believe those mass murderers failed to follow Jesus.  These men
> > were certainly adherents to various of the Christian religions by every
> > standard during the time they lived.  I think there is Jesus, then there
> is
> > Christ, and then there are the movements that became Christianity and
> > promptly began feuding, bickering, and calling one another heretics
before
> > the Kingdom of God movement of Jesus was even a century old.  And that
> > ultimately resolved itself in Christians of one persuasion murdering
> > Christians of other persuasions.  Not exactly what Jesus had in mind, I
> > fear.  Yet another example of people taking really great ideas and
> screwing
> > them up.  Just my opinion.  I fear I am not very orthodox.  Guess that
> makes
> > me a heretic.  I would have been burned for my faith in 17th century
North
> > Germany by the Lutherans, or 15th century Spain by the Catholics, or
16th
> > century Geneva by Calvinists, or 16th century Anglicans in England.
> >
> > I agree insofar as Jesus never proclaimed murder as a tool for
> > prosletyzation.  Jesus had it right.  His followers got it wrong.
> > Tragically so in some cases.
> >
>
> If Jesus existed and the gospels are to be taken as a reliable source of
his
> teachings, there are a few passages where he promises death and
destruction
> to all cities which do not welcome his disciples.
>
>
>  "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart
thence,
> shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I
> say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day
> of judgment, than for that city."
>
> regards
> Milan
>
What's your point?

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> begin  In <1120319280.957613.34300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, on
> 07/02/2005
>    at 08:48 AM, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk said:
>
> >We get our knowledge from the New Testament, which those who knew the
> >authors tell us was written by people who knew Jesus and their
> >associates.
>
> Really? What contemporaneous documents do you have to support that
> claim?

Obscurantism noted.  You may find evidence inconvenient, but that is
not my problem.

> >since the man founded
>
> No. The man,  if he existed at all, was safely dead before the
> organization was founded.

Really.  What contemporaneous documents do you have to support that
claim?

> >Instead they work out what sort of criteria the evidence will not
> >pass, and demand that.
>
> You mean like insisting on original documents and doing Carbon dating
> to authenticate their antiquity?

Just like that. Only the truly ignorant suppose that autographs exist
from antiquity, or that manuscripts are carbon dated.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

"YouCanToo" <dwmoar@findmoore.net> wrote in message 
news:W_CdnZM1sYocIlvfRVn-rQ@megapath.net...
> Noah Roberts wrote:
>
>>
>> As far as human society goes, we have made the world what it is. Freedom 
>> comes with a price, and that price is responsibility.  Would you really 
>> want God to step in and force us all to do what he/she/it/they wanted?
>
> Would you have a choice if he did step in ?  That is if there really is 
> such a person or enity!

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy wrote:
>Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so 
>mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some 
>thinkers have chosen to >see it as a final and clinching proof of the 
>nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this:
>"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and 
>without faith I am nothing."
>"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not 
>have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own 
>arguments, >you don't."
>"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a 
>puff of logic. 

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:01:58 +0000 (UTC), "Chris Dykes"
<dykes.chris@gmail.com> Gave us:

>"YouCanToo" <dwmoar@findmoore.net> wrote in message 
>news:W_CdnZM1sYocIlvfRVn-rQ@megapath.net...
>> Noah Roberts wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As far as human society goes, we have made the world what it is. Freedom 
>>> comes with a price, and that price is responsibility.  Would you really 
>>> want God to step in and force us all to do what he/she/it/they wanted?
>>
>> Would you have a choice if he did step in ?  That is if there really is 
>> such a person or enity!
>
>The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy wrote:
>>Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so 
>>mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some 
>>thinkers have chosen to >see it as a final and clinching proof of the 
>>nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this:
>>"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and 
>>without faith I am nothing."
>>"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not 
>>have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own 
>>arguments, >you don't."
>>"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a 
>>puff of logic. 
>

  Better put your finger in the hole in that dyke...

Chris Dykes wrote:

> The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy wrote:
> 
>>Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so 
>>mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some 
>>thinkers have chosen to >see it as a final and clinching proof of the 
>>nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this:
>>"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and 
>>without faith I am nothing."
>>"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not 
>>have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own 
>>arguments, >you don't."
>>"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a 
>>puff of logic. 

Yeah, that is a pretty funny joke.  I notice they didn't put it in the 
movie though.  Hopefully it wasn't due to pressure from groups that take 
jokes like that too literally.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:10:09 -0700, Noah Roberts
<nroberts@dontemailme.com> Gave us:

>Chris Dykes wrote:
>
>> The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy wrote:
>> 
>>>Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so 
>>>mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some 
>>>thinkers have chosen to >see it as a final and clinching proof of the 
>>>nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this:
>>>"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and 
>>>without faith I am nothing."
>>>"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not 
>>>have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own 
>>>arguments, >you don't."
>>>"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a 
>>>puff of logic. 
>
>Yeah, that is a pretty funny joke.  I notice they didn't put it in the 
>movie though.  Hopefully it wasn't due to pressure from groups that take 
>jokes like that too literally.


 I really didn't think that the movie was all that great...

  SPOILER ALERT!

 For some reason... despite all the effects and drama, I didn't think
that War of the Worlds was all that great either...  I expected
something different.  How dumb of me to think they would change the
story...  even a little bit.

"TokaMundo" <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote > I really didn't think that 
the movie was all that great...
>
>  SPOILER ALERT!
>
> For some reason... despite all the effects and drama, I didn't think
> that War of the Worlds was all that great either...  I expected
> something different.  How dumb of me to think they would change the
> story...  even a little bit.

Should have started spraying water at the screen every time Cruise appeared. 

begin  In <1121155252.019630.15280@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, on
07/12/2005
   at 01:00 AM, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk said:

>Obscurantism noted. 

ITYM invented. I take it that you don't consider contemporaneous
documents important.

>You may find evidence inconvenient,

You haven't presented evidence, you've presented hearsay. I understand
that to be more convenient for you.

>All the best,

 Hoi ha'omrim lra' tov ultov ra',
 samim choshech l'or c'or lchoshech,
 samim mar lmatoq vmatoq lmar.

Insulting people and then closing with "all the best" is arrant
hypocrisy.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42d30836$0$22382$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3jbghbFp1j4pU1@individual.net...
> >
> > "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:42d06901$0$5749$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> > >
> > > "J.W." <J.W.@hw61.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns968E7BEE8E87Ahohn@207.217.125.201...
> > > > "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> wrote in
> > > > news:42d012cd$0$5749$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
> > > >
> > > > <Snip>
> > > >
> > > > > Precisely my point.  Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and brutal
> than
> > > > > Christians, Moslems, nature worshippers, Confucians, pagans, and
> > > > > believers, or non-believers, or agnostics in any cultural system.
> > > > > (Although I can't think of a single example of members of the
> Society
> > > > > of Friends committing mass murder.  Can you?)  Nor are atheists
any
> > > > > less bloodthirsty than their theist counterparts.  To me, it is
> > > > > apparent that all of us human beings share common flaws, with the
> > > > > possible exception of the Quakers, that is..
> > > > >
> > > > >> Also, many of those in eastern Europe would have been raised in a
> > > > >> "Christian" country, prior to communism.  All that this proves is
> > > > >> that religion does not prevent such "leaders" from occurring.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nor does one being reared in atheism prevent one from growing up
> into
> > > > > a bloodthirsty thug.  What's your point?
> > > > >
> > > > >> Also, throughout
> > > > >> history, people have often been at risk, when challenging the
> > > > >> official religion.  Remember the Inquisition?  The various
pogroms?
> > > > >> Religious persectution throughout European history, for simply
> being
> > > > >> in the wrong Christian church?
> > > > >>
> > > > > Oh, but I do recall the pogroms, inquisitions, witch hunts,
crusades
> > > > > (even the lesser known ones such as that called by Pope Martin V
> > > > > against Bohemia during the 15th century), persecutions, and a slew
> of
> > > > > other Christian atrocities and blood baths.  Nevertheless, it is a
> > > > > fact that atheists murdered far more people in the 20th century
> alone
> > > > > than every Christian thug in history since Christianity began.
> Basic
> > > > > historical demographics, readily available in hundreds, if not
> > > > > thousands of sources.  So it seems to me that people living in
> nations
> > > > > governed by atheists during the 20th century were far more at risk
> > > > > than people living in places governed by Christians at any time.
> > > >
> > > > Hey Tom,
> > > >
> > > > This time you got me confused coming and going.  You start off
saying:
> > > >
> > > > "Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and brutal than Christians,
> Moslems,
> > > > nature worshippers, ... (etc.);"
> > > >
> > > > and then you say:
> > > >
> > > > ". . .it is a fact that atheists murdered far more people in the
20th
> > > > century alone than every Christian thug in history since
Christianity
> > > > began."
> > > >
> > > > How can atheists be no more bloodthirsty than religionists when
> atheists
> > > > have shed more blood in one century than religionists have ever
shed?
> > > > Doesn't the latter statistic contradict the first statement just a
> > little
> > > > bit?
> > > >
> > > Easily explained.  By the 20th century mass murder became
> industrialized.
> > > The techniques used in the 20th century to commit mass murder were far
> > more
> > > efficient than those of previous centuries.  I do not doubt for a
moment
> > > that Pope Martin V or Richard I or Luther or Calvin would have used
> heavy
> > > bomber raids, Zyklon B, machine guns, and every other modern killing
> > device
> > > without so much as a second thought had they been available. The 20th
> > > century atheists were simply more technically proficient.  Remember
that
> > it
> > > was those good Christian Englishmen who invented the concentration
camp
> > for
> > > the elderly, women, and children who had the temerity to oppose them,
> not
> > > the atheists or the Nazis or the Moslems or the Mongols or the Savages
> of
> > > the New World.
> > >
> > > > BTW - you may or may not agree, but I do not consider those who shed
> > blood
> > > > in the name of Jesus Christ to have been Christians at all.  I
exclude
> > > them
> > > > because: 1) neither Jesus nor any New Testament writer advocates
> > violence
> > > > and murder as a means of preserving and promoting Christianity; and
2)
> > the
> > > > New Testament, itself, says in numerous places that those who
practice
> > > > unrighteousness and hate their brother are not of God, and will not
> have
> > > > eternal life.  (See Romans 1:29-31; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 John
> 3:10,15.)
> > > > Even Jesus said that one calls his brother a fool will be liable to
> the
> > > > fires of hell.  (Matthew 5:21-22.)  I would concede the opposite
view
> > only
> > > > if the New Testament taught violence as a means of bringing forth
the
> > > > kingdom; but it doesn't.
> > > >
> > > I rather believe those mass murderers failed to follow Jesus.  These
men
> > > were certainly adherents to various of the Christian religions by
every
> > > standard during the time they lived.  I think there is Jesus, then
there
> > is
> > > Christ, and then there are the movements that became Christianity and
> > > promptly began feuding, bickering, and calling one another heretics
> before
> > > the Kingdom of God movement of Jesus was even a century old.  And that
> > > ultimately resolved itself in Christians of one persuasion murdering
> > > Christians of other persuasions.  Not exactly what Jesus had in mind,
I
> > > fear.  Yet another example of people taking really great ideas and
> > screwing
> > > them up.  Just my opinion.  I fear I am not very orthodox.  Guess that
> > makes
> > > me a heretic.  I would have been burned for my faith in 17th century
> North
> > > Germany by the Lutherans, or 15th century Spain by the Catholics, or
> 16th
> > > century Geneva by Calvinists, or 16th century Anglicans in England.
> > >
> > > I agree insofar as Jesus never proclaimed murder as a tool for
> > > prosletyzation.  Jesus had it right.  His followers got it wrong.
> > > Tragically so in some cases.
> > >
> >
> > If Jesus existed and the gospels are to be taken as a reliable source of
> his
> > teachings, there are a few passages where he promises death and
> destruction
> > to all cities which do not welcome his disciples.
> >
> >
> >  "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart
> thence,
> > shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily
I
> > say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the
day
> > of judgment, than for that city."
> >
> > regards
> > Milan
> >
> What's your point?
>

I thought that my point was clear. Jesus threatened people with eternal and
horrific torments if they failed to follow him. Not a very nice way of
proselytizing.

regards
Milan

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:52:29 +0000, beefalo wrote:

> Luna Lane wrote:
>> In addition he says Linux is not Unix but a poor hack and that IBM is
>> in the process of re-writing much of the core Linux kernel with the
>> idea that they will be marketing their own version of Linux.
> 
> IBM is doing no such thing... they, among many other companies, are 
> _funding_ current Linux kernel development, but they are not nor do they 
> have plans to rewrite the current kernel.
> 
> I don't really have any info to back this up, but I'd say the onus of 
> proof is on the prof. Or perhaps you just heard him wrong.
> 
> --beefalo

Your prof is entitled to his view.  It may be wrong and entirely bass
ackwards but as an intellectual, he is entitled to it.  I will kill the
first opinionated bastard who disagrees with me.

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> begin  In <1121155252.019630.15280@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, on
> 07/12/2005
>    at 01:00 AM, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk said:
>
> >Obscurantism noted.
>
> ITYM invented. I take it that you don't consider contemporaneous
> documents important.

I note your lack of education.  Kindly do something about it before you
post further.

> >You may find evidence inconvenient,
>
> You haven't presented evidence, you've presented hearsay. I understand
> that to be more convenient for you.

Projection noted.  Can you offer anything but assertion?

> >All the best,
>
>  Hoi ha'omrim lra' tov ultov ra',
>  samim choshech l'or c'or lchoshech,
>  samim mar lmatoq vmatoq lmar.

<chuckle>

> Insulting people and then closing with "all the best" is arrant
> hypocrisy.

Thanks for the abuse.  Funny how people like you can't offer anything
else except demands and abuse.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

begin  In <1121355998.441302.140360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, on
07/14/2005
   at 08:46 AM, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk said:

>I note your lack of education.

Do you often note things that don't exist?

>Kindly do something about it before you post further.

Kindly FOAD.


>Can you offer anything but assertion?

PKB.

>Thanks for the abuse.

What goes around comes around. You want politeness, be polite.

>Funny how people like you can't offer anything
>else except demands and abuse.

You mean like calling them ignorant and lying about what they want?
I've had enough of your hypocrisy.

*PLONK*

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3jl9kfFq6gngU1@individual.net...
>
> "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:42d30836$0$22382$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >
> > "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3jbghbFp1j4pU1@individual.net...
> > >
> > > "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:42d06901$0$5749$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> > > >
> > > > "J.W." <J.W.@hw61.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:Xns968E7BEE8E87Ahohn@207.217.125.201...
> > > > > "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> wrote in
> > > > > news:42d012cd$0$5749$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
> > > > >
> > > > > <Snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Precisely my point.  Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and
brutal
> > than
> > > > > > Christians, Moslems, nature worshippers, Confucians, pagans, and
> > > > > > believers, or non-believers, or agnostics in any cultural
system.
> > > > > > (Although I can't think of a single example of members of the
> > Society
> > > > > > of Friends committing mass murder.  Can you?)  Nor are atheists
> any
> > > > > > less bloodthirsty than their theist counterparts.  To me, it is
> > > > > > apparent that all of us human beings share common flaws, with
the
> > > > > > possible exception of the Quakers, that is..
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Also, many of those in eastern Europe would have been raised in
a
> > > > > >> "Christian" country, prior to communism.  All that this proves
is
> > > > > >> that religion does not prevent such "leaders" from occurring.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nor does one being reared in atheism prevent one from growing up
> > into
> > > > > > a bloodthirsty thug.  What's your point?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Also, throughout
> > > > > >> history, people have often been at risk, when challenging the
> > > > > >> official religion.  Remember the Inquisition?  The various
> pogroms?
> > > > > >> Religious persectution throughout European history, for simply
> > being
> > > > > >> in the wrong Christian church?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > Oh, but I do recall the pogroms, inquisitions, witch hunts,
> crusades
> > > > > > (even the lesser known ones such as that called by Pope Martin V
> > > > > > against Bohemia during the 15th century), persecutions, and a
slew
> > of
> > > > > > other Christian atrocities and blood baths.  Nevertheless, it is
a
> > > > > > fact that atheists murdered far more people in the 20th century
> > alone
> > > > > > than every Christian thug in history since Christianity began.
> > Basic
> > > > > > historical demographics, readily available in hundreds, if not
> > > > > > thousands of sources.  So it seems to me that people living in
> > nations
> > > > > > governed by atheists during the 20th century were far more at
risk
> > > > > > than people living in places governed by Christians at any time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > This time you got me confused coming and going.  You start off
> saying:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Atheists are no more bloodthirsty and brutal than Christians,
> > Moslems,
> > > > > nature worshippers, ... (etc.);"
> > > > >
> > > > > and then you say:
> > > > >
> > > > > ". . .it is a fact that atheists murdered far more people in the
> 20th
> > > > > century alone than every Christian thug in history since
> Christianity
> > > > > began."
> > > > >
> > > > > How can atheists be no more bloodthirsty than religionists when
> > atheists
> > > > > have shed more blood in one century than religionists have ever
> shed?
> > > > > Doesn't the latter statistic contradict the first statement just a
> > > little
> > > > > bit?
> > > > >
> > > > Easily explained.  By the 20th century mass murder became
> > industrialized.
> > > > The techniques used in the 20th century to commit mass murder were
far
> > > more
> > > > efficient than those of previous centuries.  I do not doubt for a
> moment
> > > > that Pope Martin V or Richard I or Luther or Calvin would have used
> > heavy
> > > > bomber raids, Zyklon B, machine guns, and every other modern killing
> > > device
> > > > without so much as a second thought had they been available. The
20th
> > > > century atheists were simply more technically proficient.  Remember
> that
> > > it
> > > > was those good Christian Englishmen who invented the concentration
> camp
> > > for
> > > > the elderly, women, and children who had the temerity to oppose
them,
> > not
> > > > the atheists or the Nazis or the Moslems or the Mongols or the
Savages
> > of
> > > > the New World.
> > > >
> > > > > BTW - you may or may not agree, but I do not consider those who
shed
> > > blood
> > > > > in the name of Jesus Christ to have been Christians at all.  I
> exclude
> > > > them
> > > > > because: 1) neither Jesus nor any New Testament writer advocates
> > > violence
> > > > > and murder as a means of preserving and promoting Christianity;
and
> 2)
> > > the
> > > > > New Testament, itself, says in numerous places that those who
> practice
> > > > > unrighteousness and hate their brother are not of God, and will
not
> > have
> > > > > eternal life.  (See Romans 1:29-31; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 John
> > 3:10,15.)
> > > > > Even Jesus said that one calls his brother a fool will be liable
to
> > the
> > > > > fires of hell.  (Matthew 5:21-22.)  I would concede the opposite
> view
> > > only
> > > > > if the New Testament taught violence as a means of bringing forth
> the
> > > > > kingdom; but it doesn't.
> > > > >
> > > > I rather believe those mass murderers failed to follow Jesus.  These
> men
> > > > were certainly adherents to various of the Christian religions by
> every
> > > > standard during the time they lived.  I think there is Jesus, then
> there
> > > is
> > > > Christ, and then there are the movements that became Christianity
and
> > > > promptly began feuding, bickering, and calling one another heretics
> > before
> > > > the Kingdom of God movement of Jesus was even a century old.  And
that
> > > > ultimately resolved itself in Christians of one persuasion murdering
> > > > Christians of other persuasions.  Not exactly what Jesus had in
mind,
> I
> > > > fear.  Yet another example of people taking really great ideas and
> > > screwing
> > > > them up.  Just my opinion.  I fear I am not very orthodox.  Guess
that
> > > makes
> > > > me a heretic.  I would have been burned for my faith in 17th century
> > North
> > > > Germany by the Lutherans, or 15th century Spain by the Catholics, or
> > 16th
> > > > century Geneva by Calvinists, or 16th century Anglicans in England.
> > > >
> > > > I agree insofar as Jesus never proclaimed murder as a tool for
> > > > prosletyzation.  Jesus had it right.  His followers got it wrong.
> > > > Tragically so in some cases.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If Jesus existed and the gospels are to be taken as a reliable source
of
> > his
> > > teachings, there are a few passages where he promises death and
> > destruction
> > > to all cities which do not welcome his disciples.
> > >
> > >
> > >  "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart
> > thence,
> > > shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.
Verily
> I
> > > say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorra in the
> day
> > > of judgment, than for that city."
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Milan
> > >
> > What's your point?
> >
>
> I thought that my point was clear. Jesus threatened people with eternal
and
> horrific torments if they failed to follow him. Not a very nice way of
> proselytizing.
>
> regards
> Milan
>
Actually, I think Jesus said that his disciples should leave places that do
not accept them.  The reference to Sodom and Gomorra is in the future, on a
future day of judgment.  Isn't it?  I could be wrong about the verb tenses,
and if I am, please correct me.
>