Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Monday 05 March 2007 11:32 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Monday 05 March 2007 09:37 \__
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> __/ [ Doug Mentohl ] on Saturday 03 March 2007 16:12 \__
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: chukst Sun Sep 29 17:16:46 1991
>>>>>> To: mikedr; philba; scottq
>>>>>> Subject: Bambi on DR-DOS 6.0
>>>>>> Date: Sun Sep 29 17:16:39 1991
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tracked down a serious incompatibility with DR-DOS 6 - They don't use
>>>>>> the 'normal' device driver interface for > 32M partitions. Instead of
>>>>>> setting the regular START SECTOR field to 0ffffh and then using a brand
>>>>>> new 32-bit field the way MS-DOS has always done, they simply extend the
>>>>>> start sector field by 16 bits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've patched a version of Bambi to work with DRD6, and it seems to run
>>>>>> Win 3.1 without difficulty. This same problem may have caused other
>>>>>> problems with Win 3.1 and the swapfile under DRD6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is possible to make Bambi work, assuming we can come up with a
>>>>>> reasonably safe method for detecting DRD6.
>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think? Should we test further with the patched Bambi to see
>>>>>> if there are any more incompatibilities?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: philba Mon Sep 30 08:15:02 1991
>>>>>> To: bradsi
>>>>>> Cc: davidcol
>>>>>> Subject: Bambi on DR-DOS 6.0
>>>>>> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 91 07:57:50 PDT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hey, hey, hey ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> my proposal is to have bambi refuse to run on this alien OS, comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/010807/PLEX_0981.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the part of the Iowa plaintif's collection that fits under the
>>>>> "technical sabotage" category. If you can'y beat them, break them
>>>>> (quietly).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So where is lolbill/amicus_curious, to tell us all this didn't happen?
>>>> Hey?
>>>
>>> He's an the payroll. I was told this by someone who knew him.
>>>
>>
>> Very unsurprising, of course, he's certainly always given the strong
>> impression of someone who was on the inside of the mafia, not the
>> outside.
>
> Only if a University is considered to be a Mafia (or if it's in cahoot with
> MS). The same goes for Erik, but for reasons, which he never elaborated on,
> he no longer works there. Maybe he's just busy job hunting these day. This
> would explain the long absence. I'll stop here though. I'm sick and tired of
> personal attacks and speculations, but sometimes they lead me to it. I never
> addressed a person's character until I joined COLA. Even mild insults were
> extremely rare and -- where they happened -- people got told off. I always
> remember an incident in the Palm newsgroups. I argues that WEP should
> probably be secure and did so naively and politely while assisting someone
> with a query. Someone else said to me "you're full of it" because,
> apparently, WEP was by no means secure. It got cracked. At the time, without
> thick skin, I took it very hard, but later I saw people going on the
> offence, criticing the person in question for lack of manners. That was
> then, pre-COLA days. COLA shouldn't have become the so-called "armpit of
> UseNet", but the trolls were here to ensure that the culture here was rough,
> repellent, and lowered credibility. If the reputation of the group can be
> elevated, then the archives of COLA as a whole (san WinTrolls) can be
> appreciated by an outsider or a UseNet person who lurks.
>
I agree with you wholeheartedly, of course. I'm sick to the back
teeth of the constant homosexual fantasies of the wintrolls, and have
regularly indicated that I think they're inappropriate. A day or so ago,
we actually got a comment regarding child-sex, which I never thought
I'd see here, it is truly repellant. It also surprises me how many
people seem willing to accept such behaviour. Personally, I really
cannot see the point of this kind of debating style, which appears to be
centered on the destruction of credibility rather than anything positive.
I've come to the conclusion that it is used by people who fit a set of
categories: 1) serious sociopath; 2) latent or practising homosexual,
uncomfortable with it; 3) average to low IQ; 4) inexperienced/immature
(before the age where the brain develops the capability to assess impact
on others), 5) sexually inexperienced/virgin.
Obviously you might not have all of those at the same time, but probably
a most of them in our really bad trolls, if not all. The tendency for
certain trolls to fantasise gay sex between regulars is certainly a
weird thing to do, and speaks of sexual inexperience and sociopathic
tendencies.
I think your News postings have been the best thing which has happened
to cola in my long period here.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
