From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Mon Aug 13 12:04:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 13 Aug 2001 19:04:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 84571 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2001 19:04:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Aug 2001 19:04:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Aug 2001 19:04:05 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15WN0O-00036S-00 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:04:04 -0700 Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:04:04 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] New to lojban, any suggestions? Message-ID: <20010813120404.F9477@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i From: Robin Lee Powell X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9505 On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 02:57:42PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/13/2001 12:21:45 PM Central Daylight Time, > rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes: > > > > PC, don't be an asshole. I use what's best for me. In fact, my primary > > machine at home is a Win98 box. I want to do my lojban flashcarding on > > a unix machine because that way I can leave work and go home and not > > interrupt my session. > > > > And many of the programs I run on my linux box are physically impossible > > on a Win* box. The OS doesn't support the functionality. > > > > Fine. But don't take a superior attitude towards those of us who use what is > best (all things considered) for us When have I _EVER_ done that? I've bent over _backwards_ to accomodate Windows users in everything I've done for this project, and you accuse _ME_ of taking a superior attitude? This is like the 4th time you've pulled this bullshit with me. Either back up your statements or SHUT THE FUCK UP. > or complain because the world has not produced a particular toy for > your favorite private use. I wasn't complaining. I don't use Logflash, remember? I was pointing out that a program in an obscure dialect of an obscure language on a 20 year old OS that is no longer updated or supported is _not_ a generally available program. > Your final claim is interesting. Since it is prima facie unlikely is > there there real evidence (beyond "I don't know how to do it") for it. You find me a way to get setuid() working on Windows. Better minds than both of ours have been trying it for over a decade. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, PC, and every conversation we've had about computer programming and computer issues has proven that. Until you've programmed in both Windows _and_ at least one UNIX, I have no interest in listening any further to your rantings on the topic. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/