K
Kadaitcha Man
Guest
the Jizz Guy wrote:
Can you do better?
I
Ioustana Waliy Allah
Guest
David Sutherland wrote:
invented, so yeah, I have a history.
<snort>
You're a fuckhead.
headers is 100% kosher, unmunged even. So, you were deluding yourselfabout
my not using a real mail address.
So, you want to bring balls into this, eh? Ok, fucktard, you don't have the
balls to use an unmunged mail address whereas I do.
shot?
B) Because your statement about not using a real mail address shows you to
be a fuckwitted and delusional oaf.
C) There are many other reasons, but you should be getting the general idea
that you're a fucking moron.
**** FUCKWIT OF THE WEEK AWARD ***
Awarded to David Sutherland david@sutherda.my-bulldog.com for the following
delusion:
"He doesn't have the balls to present a real email address"
<aside>
He really ought to see a doctor about a referal for his obvious mental
illnesses.
No shit, Sherlock? I've been trolling usenet since before the internet was
invented, so yeah, I have a history.
<snort>
I don't ask for anything. I give it away freely. Here, have a freebie...
You're a fuckhead.
Erm... don't look now, you total fucktard, but the mail address in the
headers is 100% kosher, unmunged even. So, you were deluding yourselfabout
my not using a real mail address.
So, you want to bring balls into this, eh? Ok, fucktard, you don't have the
balls to use an unmunged mail address whereas I do.
So, usenet is the real world, is it? When did you last have a distemper
shot?
A) Because you wrote it.
B) Because your statement about not using a real mail address shows you to
be a fuckwitted and delusional oaf.
C) There are many other reasons, but you should be getting the general idea
that you're a fucking moron.
Go on then. I dare you to.
**** FUCKWIT OF THE WEEK AWARD ***
Awarded to David Sutherland david@sutherda.my-bulldog.com for the following
delusion:
"He doesn't have the balls to present a real email address"
<aside>
He really ought to see a doctor about a referal for his obvious mental
illnesses.
A
Andries Sayyid
Guest
Diogenes wrote:
bounds, eh.
scroll down, I'd copy the text from his post and show you, but he's not so I
won't.
A real, 100% kosher, and unmunged mail address at that. Delusion knows no
bounds, eh.
He likes to give it but he can't take it. If he was worth the effort of a
scroll down, I'd copy the text from his post and show you, but he's not so I
won't.
D
Diogenes
Guest
Clifton Alim wrote:
--
Diogenes
He also seems 'disturbed'. Like an individual about to snap. Sad.
--
Diogenes
D
Diogenes
Guest
David Sutherland wrote:
rid the internet of Kadaitcha Man. I strongly suspect that the one who calls
himself Kadaitcha Man is really Teh Ghod Trole.
--
Diogenes
Had he done his research properly, he would have discovered that the Jaytard
rid the internet of Kadaitcha Man. I strongly suspect that the one who calls
himself Kadaitcha Man is really Teh Ghod Trole.
--
Diogenes
C
Clifton Alim
Guest
David Sutherland wrote:
simple email. Are you a linuxfuck as well, you dumb cunt?
Received: from kadaitcha.cx (root@localhost)
by kadaitcha.cx (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5M1CIb12931
for <nospam@kadaitcha.cx>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:14:18 +1000
X-ClientAddr: 168.143.113.18
Received: from mail.cyberpass.net [168.143.113.18]
by kadaitcha.cx (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5M1CDm12918
for <nospam@kadaitcha.cx>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:14:13 +1000
Received: from netjerykhet (bonnie.cyberpass.net [168.143.113.124])
with ESMTP id 92F815D228D
for <nospam@kadaitcha.cx>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <015f01c457f5$12ed6b90$6501a8c0@netjerykhet>
From: "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net>
To: <nospam@kadaitcha.cx>
Subject: Is David Sutherland is a fuckwit?
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 04 06:25:27 +0545
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required 5,
BAYES_00)
Status:
Yes, David Sutherland is a fuckwit.
Ok, so you really are so pathetically stupid that you can't even send a
simple email. Are you a linuxfuck as well, you dumb cunt?
Received: from kadaitcha.cx (root@localhost)
by kadaitcha.cx (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5M1CIb12931
for <nospam@kadaitcha.cx>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:14:18 +1000
X-ClientAddr: 168.143.113.18
Received: from mail.cyberpass.net [168.143.113.18]
by kadaitcha.cx (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5M1CDm12918
for <nospam@kadaitcha.cx>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:14:13 +1000
Received: from netjerykhet (bonnie.cyberpass.net [168.143.113.124])
with ESMTP id 92F815D228D
for <nospam@kadaitcha.cx>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <015f01c457f5$12ed6b90$6501a8c0@netjerykhet>
From: "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net>
To: <nospam@kadaitcha.cx>
Subject: Is David Sutherland is a fuckwit?
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 04 06:25:27 +0545
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required 5,
BAYES_00)
Status:
Yes, David Sutherland is a fuckwit.
D
David Sutherland
Guest
Diogenes wrote:
A closet Jaytard.
K
Kadaitcha Man
Guest
Diogenes wrote:
real name.
That reminds me. I still have to kill relic. He's the only one who knows my
real name.
M
MMI
Guest
David Sutherland wrote:
more about the dumb idea of yours that it must be always a quote in
quotations marks would make you look silly.
Cheers,
Martin
You'd better thank me that I'm not going into details much. Revealing
more about the dumb idea of yours that it must be always a quote in
quotations marks would make you look silly.
Cheers,
Martin
R
relic
Guest
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
--
- relic -
Don't take life too seriously, You won't get out alive.
....and address.
--
- relic -
Don't take life too seriously, You won't get out alive.
K
Kadaitcha Man
Guest
relic wrote:
The urgency of the need for your demise just skyrocketed.
R
relic
Guest
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
--
- relic -
Don't take life too seriously, You won't get out alive.
PMSL
--
- relic -
Don't take life too seriously, You won't get out alive.
R
relic
Guest
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
Afterall, he was an Internet Researcher and Sleuth.
--
- relic -
Don't take life too seriously, You won't get out alive.
If I held out against the Jaytard and his 'friends' you shouldn't worry.
Afterall, he was an Internet Researcher and Sleuth.
--
- relic -
Don't take life too seriously, You won't get out alive.
K
Kadaitcha Man
Guest
relic wrote:
Besides, I might plan to do you in the same way as I've been doing Keyser
in.
Are you asking for a bribe, buddy?
He claimed to be a reseach [sic] professional.
Besides, I might plan to do you in the same way as I've been doing Keyser
in.
R
relic
Guest
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
--
- relic -
Don't take life too seriously, You won't get out alive.
Keyser probably deserves it.
--
- relic -
Don't take life too seriously, You won't get out alive.
T
TuxTrax
Guest
terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter) wrote in message news:<4a77b8e8.0405231915.6675f43e@posting.google.com>...
Dork.
Yea, yea, thats the ticket. "Terry Porter" posted that message.
Dork.
C
Curtis Bass
Guest
MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rmQKQ$8dh@news.consultron.ca>...
is 3rd party, just as The Ghost In The Machine was:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7hu3q1-drn.ln1%40lexi2.athghost7038suus.net&output=gplain
"Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.
(Trumpet Winsock was a 3rd party addon product
that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)"
The Ghost In The Machine -- June 15, 2004
It's easy to assume vendor (out of the box) support, as you did, but
the problem is that you went into an "out of the box" rant in spite of
The Ghost In The Machine's clarification that the support he was
talking about was indeed 3rd party, and now it seems you have a desire
to mislead people into thinking that OS/2 has out of the box
multi-user and file system security support.
multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it is a beta
port of Linux code. Which, of course, leads to the obvious question:
Why not just use Linux, instead of porting all of this Linux/GNU code
over to the OS/2 kernel?
Curtis
I have no problem with it, as long as you are clear that the supportCurtis Bass wrote:
MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rjyw9$8eU@news.consultron.ca>...
David Sutherland wrote:
On 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700, mmi@nautimail.com (MMI) wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
[snip]
Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.
Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.
Guess that reading his next sentence was just waaaay too much trouble
for you.
No. If "something has support for some doodad" then I expect it to have
that out of the box, not that I am to hunt the net for some 3rd party SW
suite.
What you "expect" is irrelevant -- The Ghost In The Machine never
claimed that Windows had "out of the box" TCP/IP support, and, whether
you like it or not, 3rd party support is just as legitimate and
relevant as "out of the box" support.
Great. Will remeber the last one.
But great, from this time on, I can say that OS/2 had let's say
NFS support from the 2.x (1992-1993) times.
If it's actually true, then yes, absolutely.
Great. And don't tell me you
didn't find any in your OS/2 box.
It doesn't seem to be an issue with anybody but you . . .
Or we can agree that "has support" means "out-of-the box" and then I'll
shut up about let's say NFS for OS/2, but I'll be right about Trumpet
Winsock... You can choose...
Sure, you can be "right" about Trumpet WinSock if we all adopt your
pet meaning of "support", but that is rather unlikely, considering
that your pet meaning is itself wrong.
OK, I will adopt the 'right' meaning, why not. It allows me now to say
that OS/2 has a local multiuser and a local security support (not
HPFS386 related), because there is a 3rd party product that does that.
How do you like it?
is 3rd party, just as The Ghost In The Machine was:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7hu3q1-drn.ln1%40lexi2.athghost7038suus.net&output=gplain
"Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.
(Trumpet Winsock was a 3rd party addon product
that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)"
The Ghost In The Machine -- June 15, 2004
It's easy to assume vendor (out of the box) support, as you did, but
the problem is that you went into an "out of the box" rant in spite of
The Ghost In The Machine's clarification that the support he was
talking about was indeed 3rd party, and now it seems you have a desire
to mislead people into thinking that OS/2 has out of the box
multi-user and file system security support.
It ain't "my" right definition -- it's just _the_ right definition.
Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security andI just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting about
NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.
multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it is a beta
port of Linux code. Which, of course, leads to the obvious question:
Why not just use Linux, instead of porting all of this Linux/GNU code
over to the OS/2 kernel?
Curtis
T
The Ghost In The Machine
Guest
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Curtis Bass
<cmbass_us@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 23 Jun 2004 08:42:45 -0700
<163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1@posting.google.com>:
can also flip the question (you'll see how in a moment).
Obviously, OS/2 has some utilities that the individual likes. I've
heard good things about their workshell (I forget the exact name),
for example.
The flipped question, obviously, is why those couldn't be ported to Linux.
I do not know the answer to that, as I'm not familiar enough with OS/2.
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
<cmbass_us@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 23 Jun 2004 08:42:45 -0700
<163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1@posting.google.com>:
I for one would think that obvious, if somewhat limiting, since oneMMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rmQKQ$8dh@news.consultron.ca>...
Curtis Bass wrote:
MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rjyw9$8eU@news.consultron.ca>...
David Sutherland wrote:
On 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700, mmi@nautimail.com (MMI) wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
[snip]
Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.
Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.
Guess that reading his next sentence was just waaaay too much trouble
for you.
No. If "something has support for some doodad" then I expect it to have
that out of the box, not that I am to hunt the net for some 3rd party SW
suite.
What you "expect" is irrelevant -- The Ghost In The Machine never
claimed that Windows had "out of the box" TCP/IP support, and, whether
you like it or not, 3rd party support is just as legitimate and
relevant as "out of the box" support.
Great. Will remeber the last one.
But great, from this time on, I can say that OS/2 had let's say
NFS support from the 2.x (1992-1993) times.
If it's actually true, then yes, absolutely.
Great. And don't tell me you
didn't find any in your OS/2 box.
It doesn't seem to be an issue with anybody but you . . .
Or we can agree that "has support" means "out-of-the box" and then I'll
shut up about let's say NFS for OS/2, but I'll be right about Trumpet
Winsock... You can choose...
Sure, you can be "right" about Trumpet WinSock if we all adopt your
pet meaning of "support", but that is rather unlikely, considering
that your pet meaning is itself wrong.
OK, I will adopt the 'right' meaning, why not. It allows me now to say
that OS/2 has a local multiuser and a local security support (not
HPFS386 related), because there is a 3rd party product that does that.
How do you like it?
I have no problem with it, as long as you are clear that the support
is 3rd party, just as The Ghost In The Machine was:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7hu3q1-drn.ln1%40lexi2.athghost7038suus.net&output=gplain
"Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.
(Trumpet Winsock was a 3rd party addon product
that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)"
The Ghost In The Machine -- June 15, 2004
It's easy to assume vendor (out of the box) support, as you did, but
the problem is that you went into an "out of the box" rant in spite of
The Ghost In The Machine's clarification that the support he was
talking about was indeed 3rd party, and now it seems you have a desire
to mislead people into thinking that OS/2 has out of the box
multi-user and file system security support.
Multiuser-OS/2-plus-local-security* (protecting files and
directories by UID/PSWD) according to your 'right' definition?
It ain't "my" right definition -- it's just _the_ right definition.
I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting about
NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.
Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security and
multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it is a beta
port of Linux code. Which, of course, leads to the obvious question:
Why not just use Linux, instead of porting all of this Linux/GNU code
over to the OS/2 kernel?
can also flip the question (you'll see how in a moment).
Obviously, OS/2 has some utilities that the individual likes. I've
heard good things about their workshell (I forget the exact name),
for example.
The flipped question, obviously, is why those couldn't be ported to Linux.
I do not know the answer to that, as I'm not familiar enough with OS/2.
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
S
Sten Solberg
Guest
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:42:45 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
which, when applied, also secures the file system. We have been over this
before, so why do you persist in short-changing OS/2?
--
Best regards
Sten Solberg
.... Also sprach Zarathustra: "Have a Good Day!"
When will you ever learn, Curtis? Out of the box, OS/2 does have some security
which, when applied, also secures the file system. We have been over this
before, so why do you persist in short-changing OS/2?
--
Best regards
Sten Solberg
.... Also sprach Zarathustra: "Have a Good Day!"
M
MMI
Guest
Curtis Bass wrote:
multiuser and local security support. It is made by the 3rd party."
sentences. Well now I can say that. Before, the words "OS/2 has
support," or "<anything> has support" would mean that OS/2 or that
<anything> would have to support it on its own. And that really means
out-of-the-box.
impossible. Kinda sutherlandish, but I can live with that.
AFAIK the only things that look like Linux in that product is the "su"
command, using the "passwd" file with similar structure, and perhaps
"etc" directory. The rest is quite different, for example the driver
that uses security hooks in the Warp 4+ kernel, which is, and you're
surely not going to argue that, quite a different beast from the Linux
kernel. Then there is multiuser process concept, but that is common to
all multiuser systems, even NT. And don't forget, that software does
have more "actions" to disable or enable than typical Linux rwx-rwx-rwx
"holy trinity" of attributes
quite there yet" from my point of view. I'll wait for some more years to
come. Then I may switch.
Cheers,
Martin
Good then. Before this thread, I'd never say something like "OS/2 hasMMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rmQKQ$8dh@news.consultron.ca>...
Curtis Bass wrote:
MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rjyw9$8eU@news.consultron.ca>...
David Sutherland wrote:
On 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700, mmi@nautimail.com (MMI) wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
[snip]
Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.
Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.
Guess that reading his next sentence was just waaaay too much trouble
for you.
No. If "something has support for some doodad" then I expect it to have
that out of the box, not that I am to hunt the net for some 3rd party SW
suite.
What you "expect" is irrelevant -- The Ghost In The Machine never
claimed that Windows had "out of the box" TCP/IP support, and, whether
you like it or not, 3rd party support is just as legitimate and
relevant as "out of the box" support.
Great. Will remeber the last one.
But great, from this time on, I can say that OS/2 had let's say
NFS support from the 2.x (1992-1993) times.
If it's actually true, then yes, absolutely.
Great. And don't tell me you
didn't find any in your OS/2 box.
It doesn't seem to be an issue with anybody but you . . .
Or we can agree that "has support" means "out-of-the box" and then I'll
shut up about let's say NFS for OS/2, but I'll be right about Trumpet
Winsock... You can choose...
Sure, you can be "right" about Trumpet WinSock if we all adopt your
pet meaning of "support", but that is rather unlikely, considering
that your pet meaning is itself wrong.
OK, I will adopt the 'right' meaning, why not. It allows me now to say
that OS/2 has a local multiuser and a local security support (not
HPFS386 related), because there is a 3rd party product that does that.
How do you like it?
I have no problem with it,
multiuser and local security support. It is made by the 3rd party."
sentences. Well now I can say that. Before, the words "OS/2 has
support," or "<anything> has support" would mean that OS/2 or that
<anything> would have to support it on its own. And that really means
out-of-the-box.
And now it seems you know me better than I do, which of course, is
impossible. Kinda sutherlandish, but I can live with that.
Alright, I accept that.
Anything to support this claim (about beta port of Linux code)? BecauseI just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting about
NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.
Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security and
multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it is a beta
port of Linux code.
AFAIK the only things that look like Linux in that product is the "su"
command, using the "passwd" file with similar structure, and perhaps
"etc" directory. The rest is quite different, for example the driver
that uses security hooks in the Warp 4+ kernel, which is, and you're
surely not going to argue that, quite a different beast from the Linux
kernel. Then there is multiuser process concept, but that is common to
all multiuser systems, even NT. And don't forget, that software does
have more "actions" to disable or enable than typical Linux rwx-rwx-rwx
"holy trinity" of attributes
How are you going to support that claim of yours?
You know, I have Linux on my secondary machine. And well, "Linux is not
quite there yet" from my point of view. I'll wait for some more years to
come. Then I may switch.
I dunno, first I've got to see the support of your claim.
Cheers,
Martin