| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"John Watson" |
| Date: |
15 Jul 2004 11:44:18 PM |
| Object: |
Twelve Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society |
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth
control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile
couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs
more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents
only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears' 55-hour
just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at
all; just like women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is
illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the
majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the
rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the
values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have
only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal
standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at
home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a
different name, are better because a "separate but equal" institution is
always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as
well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
.
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
26 Jul 2004 12:00:46 AM |
|
|
On 26/7/04 1:20 PM, in article MPG.1b6e185a558a77729899db@news.west.cox.net,
"Enkidu" <zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote:
In article <BD2AB4A7.2A8B% >,
says...
On 26/7/04 2:41 AM, in article MPG.1b6d8288d077b0539899d4@news.west.cox.net,
"Enkidu" <zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote:
In article <BD2A17D8.29DD% >,
says...
On 26/7/04 12:46 AM, in article
MPG.1b6d67ae8c42a5359899d1@news.west.cox.net, "Enkidu"
<zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote:
In article <BD29C8B2.296A% >,
says...
On 25/7/04 10:55 AM, in article
MPG.1b6ca4db4a7b21a89899ca@news.west.cox.net, "Enkidu"
<zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Stoney,
I'd like to discuss Linux with someone who's a distance ahead of me. If
you are up for it, please contact me via email. My reply-to works.
What distro do you use? Debian? Fedora? Slackware?
None, yet. I need to replace my wife's desktop, so that frees up a 300
MHz Pentium II system with 196MB to begin learning on.
Neat, I've just installed Fedora Linux onto my parents computer, using
Crossover Office so they can run Microsoft Office, along with gPhoto so
they
can download some photos off their digital camera.
Parents are happy about the change; no longer have to contend with Win2k
and
the blue screen of death when using their camera.
So that's a recommendation for Fedora? I already use OpenOffice, so
that shouldn't be a problem. I have some work-specific software I'm
stuck with, so I've got to stick with a Windows partition at least.
Have you ever used a dual boot system?
Well, there is a problem with Fedora 2 and Windows XP; assuming you don't
have Windows XP, Fedora is your best bet, its polished, and pretty stable.
How can their be a problem? If the boot loader is working, XP shouldn't
see Linux, and Linux shouldn't see XP.
Explain to me why I'm stupid not to see the answer. I like becoming
less stupid.
Ok, the problem occurs when Fedora 2 writes the boot menu to the hard disk,
when there is a Windows XP partition present, the process of writing the
boot menu ends up rooting the Windows XP MBR, thus making it non-bootable
and thus the data unrecoverable.
The only option is, however, to set up Linux as an option in the Windows XP
boot menu, IIRC, there should be a how-to on the internet on how to do it.
With that being said; depending on how willing you are to read
documentation, IMHO I would suggest using Slackware or possibly purchase
SuSE Linux 9.1
Matty
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
27 Jul 2004 11:34:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:20:28 -0700 in episode
<MPG.1b6e185a558a77729899db@news.west.cox.net> we saw our hero Enkidu
<zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com>:
In article <BD2AB4A7.2A8B% >,
says...
On 26/7/04 2:41 AM, in article
MPG.1b6d8288d077b0539899d4@news.west.cox.net, "Enkidu"
<zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote:
In article <BD2A17D8.29DD% >,
says...
On 26/7/04 12:46 AM, in article
MPG.1b6d67ae8c42a5359899d1@news.west.cox.net, "Enkidu"
<zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote:
In article <BD29C8B2.296A% >,
says...
On 25/7/04 10:55 AM, in article
MPG.1b6ca4db4a7b21a89899ca@news.west.cox.net, "Enkidu"
<zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Stoney,
I'd like to discuss Linux with someone who's a distance ahead of
me. If you are up for it, please contact me via email. My
reply-to works.
What distro do you use? Debian? Fedora? Slackware?
None, yet. I need to replace my wife's desktop, so that frees up a
300 MHz Pentium II system with 196MB to begin learning on.
Neat, I've just installed Fedora Linux onto my parents computer,
using Crossover Office so they can run Microsoft Office, along with
gPhoto so they can download some photos off their digital camera.
Parents are happy about the change; no longer have to contend with
Win2k and the blue screen of death when using their camera.
So that's a recommendation for Fedora? I already use OpenOffice, so
that shouldn't be a problem. I have some work-specific software I'm
stuck with, so I've got to stick with a Windows partition at least.
Have you ever used a dual boot system?
Well, there is a problem with Fedora 2 and Windows XP; assuming you
don't have Windows XP, Fedora is your best bet, its polished, and pretty
stable.
How can their be a problem? If the boot loader is working, XP shouldn't
see Linux, and Linux shouldn't see XP.
Explain to me why I'm stupid not to see the answer. I like becoming less
stupid.
Probably MS up to their old tricks. They do not like dual booting.
I don't know much about Fedora but many folks seem happy with it. I think
Mandrake is probably the most "user friendly" of the bunch. I can't *stand
SuSE but that could be me. Lots of folks like it and it gets good reviews
in the "ease of installation" department...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
27 Jul 2004 11:49:24 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
[snip]
Well, there is a problem with Fedora 2 and Windows XP; assuming you
don't have Windows XP, Fedora is your best bet, its polished, and pretty
stable.
How can their be a problem? If the boot loader is working, XP shouldn't
see Linux, and Linux shouldn't see XP.
Explain to me why I'm stupid not to see the answer. I like becoming less
stupid.
Probably MS up to their old tricks. They do not like dual booting.
No, they don't like anything that smacks of competition. I'm trying not
to buy anything else from them, but switching over to a new OS is a pain
if you have years worth of work and a couple of job related programs you
have to use.
I don't know much about Fedora but many folks seem happy with it. I think
Mandrake is probably the most "user friendly" of the bunch. I can't *stand
SuSE but that could be me. Lots of folks like it and it gets good reviews
in the "ease of installation" department...
Well, ease of installation is important for a beginner.
--
Enkidu
aa 2165
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without
having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of
it too?"
--Douglas Adams
Now playing . . .
R.E.M. - Wall of Death
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
28 Jul 2004 07:40:56 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:49:24 -0700 in episode
<ifGNc.9011$mg6.2484@fed1read02> we saw our hero Enkidu
<enkidu@leaddogs.org>:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
[snip]
Well, there is a problem with Fedora 2 and Windows XP; assuming you
don't have Windows XP, Fedora is your best bet, its polished, and
pretty stable.
How can their be a problem? If the boot loader is working, XP shouldn't
see Linux, and Linux shouldn't see XP.
Explain to me why I'm stupid not to see the answer. I like becoming
less stupid.
Probably MS up to their old tricks. They do not like dual booting.
No, they don't like anything that smacks of competition. I'm trying not
to buy anything else from them, but switching over to a new OS is a pain
if you have years worth of work and a couple of job related programs you
have to use.
I don't know much about Fedora but many folks seem happy with it. I
think Mandrake is probably the most "user friendly" of the bunch. I
can't *stand SuSE but that could be me. Lots of folks like it and it
gets good reviews in the "ease of installation" department...
Well, ease of installation is important for a beginner.
By the way, there *is a bug in Fedora Core 2 they're working on that
causes problems with dual boots with XP.
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115980
There appears to be a work around available but it looks fairly
complicated:
http://lwn.net/Articles/86835/
Maybe Fedora isn't a good idea until they managed to get this one under
control?
And if it's at all possible, separate drives for the OSes is better (if
you can't, you can't but if you can, do it <g>).
I know of folks who have gotten Drake to play well with XP. But that has
been a while and MS could have changed something in the interim to make it
more difficult to do (you never know with them).
Anyway, in general, when ease of installation is a priority, I'd say
sticking to Fedora (except in this case because of the bug), Mandrake, or
SuSE are your best bets. At least as far as the big, full distributions
(as opposed to the "live CD" kind of thing). Linspire I'm just suspicious
of because of that "run as root" idea of theirs.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
25 Jul 2004 12:35:38 PM |
|
|
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> writes:
None, yet. I need to replace my wife's desktop, so that frees up a 300
MHz Pentium II system with 196MB to begin learning on.
Neat, I've just installed Fedora Linux onto my parents computer, using
Crossover Office so they can run Microsoft Office, along with gPhoto so they
can download some photos off their digital camera.
I've just converted over to Gentoo 2004.1 from RedHat 9. I got
tired of the RedHat nonsense that keeps us back in the 2.4 kernel land
and has weird kernel and libc hacks that prevent useful things from
running.
Gentoo is a serious pain in the neck to install, and some of the
"gotchas" can be especially annoying to work around, but once it was
done, I had an incredibly stable system that actually ran Wine (and
Quicken and Half-Life) and various Linux games (like Quake III and
Return to Castle Wolfenstein) and office and printing... and the
performance is unbelievably good.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
25 Jul 2004 10:48:08 PM |
|
|
On 26/7/04 3:35 AM, in article 87fz7grnv9.fsf@drizzle.com, "Elf M.
Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> writes:
None, yet. I need to replace my wife's desktop, so that frees up a 300
MHz Pentium II system with 196MB to begin learning on.
Neat, I've just installed Fedora Linux onto my parents computer, using
Crossover Office so they can run Microsoft Office, along with gPhoto so they
can download some photos off their digital camera.
I've just converted over to Gentoo 2004.1 from RedHat 9. I got
tired of the RedHat nonsense that keeps us back in the 2.4 kernel land
and has weird kernel and libc hacks that prevent useful things from
running.
Gentoo is a serious pain in the neck to install, and some of the
"gotchas" can be especially annoying to work around, but once it was
done, I had an incredibly stable system that actually ran Wine (and
Quicken and Half-Life) and various Linux games (like Quake III and
Return to Castle Wolfenstein) and office and printing... and the
performance is unbelievably good.
Elf
I've had a look at Gentoo, but the problem was mainly the fact that the PC I
have is slow and I've found that Gentoo is just a little too bleeding edge
for my tastes, also, Gentoo doesn't come with some of the nice tools which
my parents would find useful.
Right now I have it setup so that it automatically logs into the user
account, and everything is working nicely with the 2.6.6 kernel update which
is available via yum.
Matty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
26 Jul 2004 12:06:51 PM |
|
|
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> writes:
I've had a look at Gentoo, but the problem was mainly the fact that the PC I
have is slow and I've found that Gentoo is just a little too bleeding edge
for my tastes, also, Gentoo doesn't come with some of the nice tools which
my parents would find useful.
The PC I have is slow, too, but if you have a reliable network
connection you can put together a conservative build. I had no choice;
some of the features I wanted demanded a 2.6 kernel. But I wanted to
watch movies on a P2/233 with 128MB of RAM, and the only way I'm gonna
do that is with the pre-emptive kernel and real time clock features.
What does Gentoo lack that your parents want?
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
26 Jul 2004 06:32:18 PM |
|
|
On 27/7/04 3:06 AM, in article 873c3e1yvo.fsf@drizzle.com, "Elf M.
Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> writes:
I've had a look at Gentoo, but the problem was mainly the fact that the PC I
have is slow and I've found that Gentoo is just a little too bleeding edge
for my tastes, also, Gentoo doesn't come with some of the nice tools which
my parents would find useful.
The PC I have is slow, too, but if you have a reliable network
connection you can put together a conservative build. I had no choice;
some of the features I wanted demanded a 2.6 kernel. But I wanted to
watch movies on a P2/233 with 128MB of RAM, and the only way I'm gonna
do that is with the pre-emptive kernel and real time clock features.
What does Gentoo lack that your parents want?
Elf
The neat configuration and polish ;-) I wanted to make the transition as
nice as possible. Fedora makes them happy, so I'm happy ;-)
Everything runs smoothly, so why change a good thing?
Matty
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
27 Jul 2004 11:31:28 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 10:35:38 -0700 in episode <87fz7grnv9.fsf@drizzle.com>
we saw our hero "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>:
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> writes:
None, yet. I need to replace my wife's desktop, so that frees up a
300 MHz Pentium II system with 196MB to begin learning on.
Neat, I've just installed Fedora Linux onto my parents computer, using
Crossover Office so they can run Microsoft Office, along with gPhoto so
they can download some photos off their digital camera.
I've just converted over to Gentoo 2004.1 from RedHat 9. I got
tired of the RedHat nonsense that keeps us back in the 2.4 kernel land and
has weird kernel and libc hacks that prevent useful things from running.
Yeah. When RedHat "left," my only comment was "don't let the door hit
ya..." <g>
Gentoo is a serious pain in the neck to install, and some of the
"gotchas" can be especially annoying to work around, but once it was done,
I had an incredibly stable system that actually ran Wine (and Quicken and
Half-Life) and various Linux games (like Quake III and Return to Castle
Wolfenstein) and office and printing... and the performance is
unbelievably good.
Same here. It's *not easy to get installed but pretty easy to maintain.
And I do love having a system that's compiled for my machine instead of a
"one size fits all."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
28 Jul 2004 12:14:50 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 10:35:38 -0700 in episode
<87fz7grnv9.fsf@drizzle.com> we saw our hero "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com>:
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> writes:
None, yet. I need to replace my wife's desktop, so that frees up a
300 MHz Pentium II system with 196MB to begin learning on.
Neat, I've just installed Fedora Linux onto my parents computer,
using Crossover Office so they can run Microsoft Office, along with
gPhoto so they can download some photos off their digital camera.
I've just converted over to Gentoo 2004.1 from RedHat 9. I
got tired of the RedHat nonsense that keeps us back in the 2.4
kernel land and has weird kernel and libc hacks that prevent useful
things from running.
Yeah. When RedHat "left," my only comment was "don't let the door hit
ya..." <g>
Gentoo is a serious pain in the neck to install, and some of
the "gotchas" can be especially annoying to work around, but once it
was done, I had an incredibly stable system that actually ran Wine
(and Quicken and Half-Life) and various Linux games (like Quake III
and Return to Castle Wolfenstein) and office and printing... and the
performance is unbelievably good.
Same here. It's *not easy to get installed but pretty easy to
maintain. And I do love having a system that's compiled for my
machine instead of a "one size fits all."
These conversations and the general attidude of Unix users remind me of the
days of CP/M.
Can't print? Just write a few lines of assembly language. Anybody can do
that.
Works on the model x.1 but not the model x.1.a?
Well you'll have to write your own screen drivers and since the two use
different floppy disk drives you'll have to send it by serial port. After
that it's just a bit of assembly language.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
28 Jul 2004 03:36:44 AM |
|
|
On 28/7/04 3:14 PM, in article
eDGNc.1427$_a7.1355@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 10:35:38 -0700 in episode
<87fz7grnv9.fsf@drizzle.com> we saw our hero "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com>:
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> writes:
None, yet. I need to replace my wife's desktop, so that frees up a
300 MHz Pentium II system with 196MB to begin learning on.
Neat, I've just installed Fedora Linux onto my parents computer,
using Crossover Office so they can run Microsoft Office, along with
gPhoto so they can download some photos off their digital camera.
I've just converted over to Gentoo 2004.1 from RedHat 9. I
got tired of the RedHat nonsense that keeps us back in the 2.4
kernel land and has weird kernel and libc hacks that prevent useful
things from running.
Yeah. When RedHat "left," my only comment was "don't let the door hit
ya..." <g>
Gentoo is a serious pain in the neck to install, and some of
the "gotchas" can be especially annoying to work around, but once it
was done, I had an incredibly stable system that actually ran Wine
(and Quicken and Half-Life) and various Linux games (like Quake III
and Return to Castle Wolfenstein) and office and printing... and the
performance is unbelievably good.
Same here. It's *not easy to get installed but pretty easy to
maintain. And I do love having a system that's compiled for my
machine instead of a "one size fits all."
These conversations and the general attidude of Unix users remind me of the
days of CP/M.
Can't print? Just write a few lines of assembly language. Anybody can do
that.
Works on the model x.1 but not the model x.1.a?
Well you'll have to write your own screen drivers and since the two use
different floppy disk drives you'll have to send it by serial port. After
that it's just a bit of assembly language.
Well, I hope they use vi, emacs is plain bloated and evil, its the spawn of
Satan I tells ya! ;-)
As for the attitude of UNIX, I don't blame many to hold the attitude, with
me being in that group. Read the friendly manual, try to get it working THEN
ask a question leaving out no details. Don't simply post, "dem printer ain't
working! Linux 5ux0RZ!", its as useless as posting, "my cat is fluffy" onto
a linux newsgroup and wonder why you didn't get any help in trying to set up
your graphics card.
Matty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
28 Jul 2004 05:15:56 PM |
|
|
Matty wrote:
These conversations and the general attidude of Unix users remind me
of the days of CP/M.
Can't print? Just write a few lines of assembly language. Anybody
can do that.
Works on the model x.1 but not the model x.1.a?
Well you'll have to write your own screen drivers and since the two
use different floppy disk drives you'll have to send it by serial
port. After that it's just a bit of assembly language.
Well, I hope they use vi, emacs is plain bloated and evil, its the
spawn of Satan I tells ya! ;-)
As for the attitude of UNIX, I don't blame many to hold the attitude,
with me being in that group. Read the friendly manual, try to get it
working THEN ask a question leaving out no details. Don't simply
post, "dem printer ain't working! Linux 5ux0RZ!", its as useless as
posting, "my cat is fluffy" onto a linux newsgroup and wonder why you
didn't get any help in trying to set up your graphics card.
Back then it was just maybe ten to one, now it's probably a thousand or more
to one.
For every person who wants to install an operating system and use it to do
things there are far more people who want to use the computer to write
letters, draw pictures, use spreadsheets, send email or play games.
Unix was not orriginally concieved to do the latter, only the former. AT&T
used the singer sewing machine approach to put in in the colleges while *****
Pick who built Pick, a truely business oriented system believed in the
better mousetrap theory.
Microsoft got this and every upgrade of their systems from DOS 1.0, which
was easier to use than CP/M, on has paid attention to this idea. I made
good money in the early days just installing software, then DOS came along
and I made less money because just finding the drivers was all that was
needed. Today I'd be eating my dog's food if I offered to install software
for people.
MSFT is a good example of "evolution" in action. It is *not* survival of the
fittest (or bestest) it is survival of the good enough to fit the niche.
My bet is that the survivors of the Linux wars will follow this model as Red
Hat is now doing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
28 Jul 2004 09:23:56 PM |
|
|
On 29/7/04 8:15 AM, in article
wAVNc.1737$6Y4.1596@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Matty wrote:
These conversations and the general attidude of Unix users remind me
of the days of CP/M.
Can't print? Just write a few lines of assembly language. Anybody
can do that.
Works on the model x.1 but not the model x.1.a?
Well you'll have to write your own screen drivers and since the two
use different floppy disk drives you'll have to send it by serial
port. After that it's just a bit of assembly language.
Well, I hope they use vi, emacs is plain bloated and evil, its the
spawn of Satan I tells ya! ;-)
As for the attitude of UNIX, I don't blame many to hold the attitude,
with me being in that group. Read the friendly manual, try to get it
working THEN ask a question leaving out no details. Don't simply
post, "dem printer ain't working! Linux 5ux0RZ!", its as useless as
posting, "my cat is fluffy" onto a linux newsgroup and wonder why you
didn't get any help in trying to set up your graphics card.
Back then it was just maybe ten to one, now it's probably a thousand or more
to one.
For every person who wants to install an operating system and use it to do
things there are far more people who want to use the computer to write
letters, draw pictures, use spreadsheets, send email or play games.
Unix was not orriginally concieved to do the latter, only the former. AT&T
used the singer sewing machine approach to put in in the colleges while *****
Pick who built Pick, a truely business oriented system believed in the
better mousetrap theory.
Microsoft got this and every upgrade of their systems from DOS 1.0, which
was easier to use than CP/M, on has paid attention to this idea. I made
good money in the early days just installing software, then DOS came along
and I made less money because just finding the drivers was all that was
needed. Today I'd be eating my dog's food if I offered to install software
for people.
MSFT is a good example of "evolution" in action. It is *not* survival of the
fittest (or bestest) it is survival of the good enough to fit the niche.
My bet is that the survivors of the Linux wars will follow this model as Red
Hat is now doing.
True, when I was running my little "global giant" :-), Invent Networks, the
one thing customers wanted was trouble free computer operation, set them up,
maintain them, and they're happy. Most customers I served didn't want to
have a thing to do with computers, they want the computers to work for them
rather than they having to work for the computer; which is perfectly
understandable considering the fact that IT's main service is to the serve
the customer to allow that customer to operate more efficiently.
As for what MSFT did, I disagree with the idea that what they did was an
"evolution", what they created via the MCSE is an army of market speakers
clueless on the basic IT fundamentalist. Back in the good old days, one went
to university, lost half their hair then went off to specialise in a
particular area via certification.
Microsoft on the other hand lowered the bar with their MCSE, however, on a
good side, at least the remaining companies haven't lowered the bar in terms
of prerequisites for certification.
Matty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
28 Jul 2004 09:42:32 PM |
|
|
Matty wrote:
On 29/7/04 8:15 AM, in article
wAVNc.1737$6Y4.1596@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
True, when I was running my little "global giant" :-), Invent
Networks, the one thing customers wanted was trouble free computer
operation, set them up, maintain them, and they're happy. Most
customers I served didn't want to have a thing to do with computers,
they want the computers to work for them rather than they having to
work for the computer; which is perfectly understandable considering
the fact that IT's main service is to the serve the customer to allow
that customer to operate more efficiently.
As for what MSFT did, I disagree with the idea that what they did was
an "evolution", what they created via the MCSE is an army of market
speakers clueless on the basic IT fundamentalist. Back in the good
old days, one went to university, lost half their hair then went off
to specialise in a particular area via certification.
Microsoft on the other hand lowered the bar with their MCSE, however,
on a good side, at least the remaining companies haven't lowered the
bar in terms of prerequisites for certification.
Which adds to my argument. They are good enough to solve most of the
problems that come up almost as soon as they get their certs. If they have
half a brain, even without a degree they rememebr the solution and apply it
the next time they see the same problem. With training, a massive knowledge
base and a fair memory they will be good enough to fix most things and they
don't have to be good problem solvers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
29 Jul 2004 12:32:03 AM |
|
|
On 29/7/04 12:42 PM, in article
suZNc.99475$Sb5.38077@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Matty wrote:
On 29/7/04 8:15 AM, in article
wAVNc.1737$6Y4.1596@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
True, when I was running my little "global giant" :-), Invent
Networks, the one thing customers wanted was trouble free computer
operation, set them up, maintain them, and they're happy. Most
customers I served didn't want to have a thing to do with computers,
they want the computers to work for them rather than they having to
work for the computer; which is perfectly understandable considering
the fact that IT's main service is to the serve the customer to allow
that customer to operate more efficiently.
As for what MSFT did, I disagree with the idea that what they did was
an "evolution", what they created via the MCSE is an army of market
speakers clueless on the basic IT fundamentalist. Back in the good
old days, one went to university, lost half their hair then went off
to specialise in a particular area via certification.
Microsoft on the other hand lowered the bar with their MCSE, however,
on a good side, at least the remaining companies haven't lowered the
bar in terms of prerequisites for certification.
Which adds to my argument. They are good enough to solve most of the
problems that come up almost as soon as they get their certs. If they have
half a brain, even without a degree they rememebr the solution and apply it
the next time they see the same problem. With training, a massive knowledge
base and a fair memory they will be good enough to fix most things and they
don't have to be good problem solvers.
But to fix a problem properly you need the basic fundamentalists; believe
me, the number who know how to set up Windows, yet aren't able to
troubleshoot is enough to make anyone burst into tears. The fact is, yes,
get a MCSE, specialise in Microsoft based solutions, but get a basic
information technology foundation of which to build specialisation on.
I don't mean one needs to get a degree, but one should get at least an
education regarding IT, bare minimum a certificate or diploma from the local
Polytechnic.
Matty
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
29 Jul 2004 11:50:34 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:36:44 +1000, Matty wrote:
On 28/7/04 3:14 PM, in article
eDGNc.1427$_a7.1355@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 10:35:38 -0700 in episode
<87fz7grnv9.fsf@drizzle.com> we saw our hero "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com>:
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> writes:
None, yet. I need to replace my wife's desktop, so that frees up a
300 MHz Pentium II system with 196MB to begin learning on.
Neat, I've just installed Fedora Linux onto my parents computer,
using Crossover Office so they can run Microsoft Office, along with
gPhoto so they can download some photos off their digital camera.
I've just converted over to Gentoo 2004.1 from RedHat 9. I
got tired of the RedHat nonsense that keeps us back in the 2.4
kernel land and has weird kernel and libc hacks that prevent useful
things from running.
Yeah. When RedHat "left," my only comment was "don't let the door hit
ya..." <g>
Gentoo is a serious pain in the neck to install, and some of
the "gotchas" can be especially annoying to work around, but once it
was done, I had an incredibly stable system that actually ran Wine
(and Quicken and Half-Life) and various Linux games (like Quake III
and Return to Castle Wolfenstein) and office and printing... and the
performance is unbelievably good.
Same here. It's *not easy to get installed but pretty easy to
maintain. And I do love having a system that's compiled for my
machine instead of a "one size fits all."
These conversations and the general attidude of Unix users remind me of the
days of CP/M.
Can't print? Just write a few lines of assembly language. Anybody can do
that.
Works on the model x.1 but not the model x.1.a?
Well you'll have to write your own screen drivers and since the two use
different floppy disk drives you'll have to send it by serial port. After
that it's just a bit of assembly language.
Well, I hope they use vi, emacs is plain bloated and evil, its the spawn of
Satan I tells ya! ;-)
"Vi? Vi? Vi? Vi dey do dis emacs?"
"Christianity and Islam-maximum malevolence. Two of "God's" sucky ideas."
As for the attitude of UNIX, I don't blame many to hold the attitude, with
me being in that group. Read the friendly manual, try to get it working THEN
ask a question leaving out no details. Don't simply post, "dem printer ain't
working! Linux 5ux0RZ!", its as useless as posting, "my cat is fluffy" onto
a linux newsgroup and wonder why you didn't get any help in trying to set up
your graphics card.
Exactly!
In the military when I was wrenching on transceivers we'd get
write-ups like; "Doesn't work right. Fix."
DUH! *What* doesn't work right? Is it a rock? Is it a freq problem?
Is it a receive problem? Is it a transmit problem? Is it a
Special Features problem?
There's nothing to answer with 'data' like that. The problem(s)
could be anywhere.
Now, if the write-up was; "Receive is good but voice transmit
inoperative. Tone transmit good" my answer would be to
replace F2 (fuse #2).
Reason: Voice and Tone transmit are on parallel circuits. The
difference is the Tone line is equipped with a fuse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
29 Jul 2004 11:45:25 PM |
|
|
On 30/7/04 2:50 AM, in article
pan.2004.07.29.16.50.31.897619@localhost.localdomain, "stoney"
<stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:36:44 +1000, Matty wrote:
As for the attitude of UNIX, I don't blame many to hold the attitude, with
me being in that group. Read the friendly manual, try to get it working THEN
ask a question leaving out no details. Don't simply post, "dem printer ain't
working! Linux 5ux0RZ!", its as useless as posting, "my cat is fluffy" onto
a linux newsgroup and wonder why you didn't get any help in trying to set up
your graphics card.
Exactly!
In the military when I was wrenching on transceivers we'd get
write-ups like; "Doesn't work right. Fix."
DUH! *What* doesn't work right? Is it a rock? Is it a freq problem?
Is it a receive problem? Is it a transmit problem? Is it a
Special Features problem?
There's nothing to answer with 'data' like that. The problem(s)
could be anywhere.
Now, if the write-up was; "Receive is good but voice transmit
inoperative. Tone transmit good" my answer would be to
replace F2 (fuse #2).
Reason: Voice and Tone transmit are on parallel circuits. The
difference is the Tone line is equipped with a fuse.
True, I had the same problem when I worked at the local ISP on the help
desk, with people ringing up and complaining, "oh, I can't connect to the
internet" or some undescriptive rambling. Sorry, telling me you can't
connect to the internet is nice to know, but describe the steps, when the
modem dialed up, did you hear any strange tones? Any messages provided by
the computer to the reason why it can't connect?
The problem is made worse when you have idiots ringing up wanting support
for unrelated things, like, "oh Mr Help desk person, I can't get my pirated
copy of Windows 2000 working, can you help me?" my reply, "sorry, this is
2600 pirate support, we support you connecting to the internet, that's it"
and hung up. After 2 months I promptly quit to get away from those morons.
Matty
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
27 Jul 2004 11:49:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:07:20 +1000, Matty wrote:
On 26/7/04 12:46 AM, in article
MPG.1b6d67ae8c42a5359899d1@news.west.cox.net, "Enkidu"
<zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote:
In article <BD29C8B2.296A% >,
says...
On 25/7/04 10:55 AM, in article
MPG.1b6ca4db4a7b21a89899ca@news.west.cox.net, "Enkidu"
<zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Stoney,
I'd like to discuss Linux with someone who's a distance ahead of me. If
you are up for it, please contact me via email. My reply-to works.
What distro do you use? Debian? Fedora? Slackware?
None, yet. I need to replace my wife's desktop, so that frees up a 300
MHz Pentium II system with 196MB to begin learning on.
Neat, I've just installed Fedora Linux onto my parents computer, using
Crossover Office so they can run Microsoft Office, along with gPhoto so they
can download some photos off their digital camera.
Cool. :)
I haven't been able to get gphoto2 to work with a Kodak DC-4800 which is
a supported PTP camera. Nor can I get an Apacer USB 2.0 card reader
which connects to the MB (Asus A7N8X Deluxe) via internal MB connections.
Yes, it is the proper spot. Yes, they're the right polarity. It
worked with winblowz XP. I'm using RH9. The CD's came with the book.
I've got 'drake 9.2 coming in with the book. Perhaps it will do better.
Parents are happy about the change; no longer have to contend with Win2k and
the blue screen of death when using their camera.
Matty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
28 Jul 2004 03:32:22 AM |
|
|
On 28/7/04 2:49 PM, in article
pan.2004.07.28.04.49.42.764929@localhost.localdomain, "stoney"
<stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:07:20 +1000, Matty wrote:
On 26/7/04 12:46 AM, in article
MPG.1b6d67ae8c42a5359899d1@news.west.cox.net, "Enkidu"
<zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote:
In article <BD29C8B2.296A% >,
says...
On 25/7/04 10:55 AM, in article
MPG.1b6ca4db4a7b21a89899ca@news.west.cox.net, "Enkidu"
<zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Stoney,
I'd like to discuss Linux with someone who's a distance ahead of me. If
you are up for it, please contact me via email. My reply-to works.
What distro do you use? Debian? Fedora? Slackware?
None, yet. I need to replace my wife's desktop, so that frees up a 300
MHz Pentium II system with 196MB to begin learning on.
Neat, I've just installed Fedora Linux onto my parents computer, using
Crossover Office so they can run Microsoft Office, along with gPhoto so they
can download some photos off their digital camera.
Cool. :)
I haven't been able to get gphoto2 to work with a Kodak DC-4800 which is
a supported PTP camera. Nor can I get an Apacer USB 2.0 card reader
which connects to the MB (Asus A7N8X Deluxe) via internal MB connections.
Yes, it is the proper spot. Yes, they're the right polarity. It
worked with winblowz XP. I'm using RH9. The CD's came with the book.
I've got 'drake 9.2 coming in with the book. Perhaps it will do better.
What I'd suggest is download and burning to CD Fedora 2 and give that a go,
it has the latest kernel, 2.6.6 (after running yum update), you should find
that your system will work without any problems.
2.6.6 treats USB and firewire stuff a lot nicer.
Matty
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
29 Jul 2004 10:48:11 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:32:22 +1000, Matty wrote:
On 28/7/04 2:49 PM, in article
pan.2004.07.28.04.49.42.764929@localhost.localdomain, "stoney"
<stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:07:20 +1000, Matty wrote:
On 26/7/04 12:46 AM, in article
MPG.1b6d67ae8c42a5359899d1@news.west.cox.net, "Enkidu"
<zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote:
In article <BD29C8B2.296A% >,
says...
On 25/7/04 10:55 AM, in article
MPG.1b6ca4db4a7b21a89899ca@news.west.cox.net, "Enkidu"
<zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Stoney,
I'd like to discuss Linux with someone who's a distance ahead of me. If
you are up for it, please contact me via email. My reply-to works.
What distro do you use? Debian? Fedora? Slackware?
None, yet. I need to replace my wife's desktop, so that frees up a 300
MHz Pentium II system with 196MB to begin learning on.
Neat, I've just installed Fedora Linux onto my parents computer, using
Crossover Office so they can run Microsoft Office, along with gPhoto so they
can download some photos off their digital camera.
Cool. :)
I haven't been able to get gphoto2 to work with a Kodak DC-4800 which is
a supported PTP camera. Nor can I get an Apacer USB 2.0 card reader
which connects to the MB (Asus A7N8X Deluxe) via internal MB connections.
Yes, it is the proper spot. Yes, they're the right polarity. It
worked with winblowz XP. I'm using RH9. The CD's came with the book.
I've got 'drake 9.2 coming in with the book. Perhaps it will do better.
What I'd suggest is download and burning to CD Fedora 2 and give that a go,
it has the latest kernel, 2.6.6 (after running yum update), you should find
that your system will work without any problems.
2.6.6 treats USB and firewire stuff a lot nicer.
Ah, so the programmes aren't where the limitation is. The limitation is
in the kernel. If one were to update the kernel the programmes would work
properly. Is that correct?
I had never heard of yum update, but after investigation it does
sound tasty! ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
29 Jul 2004 11:26:58 PM |
|
|
On 30/7/04 1:48 AM, in article
pan.2004.07.29.15.48.01.851950@localhost.localdomain, "stoney"
<stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:32:22 +1000, Matty wrote:
What I'd suggest is download and burning to CD Fedora 2 and give that a go,
it has the latest kernel, 2.6.6 (after running yum update), you should find
that your system will work without any problems.
2.6.6 treats USB and firewire stuff a lot nicer.
Ah, so the programmes aren't where the limitation is. The limitation is
in the kernel. If one were to update the kernel the programmes would work
properly. Is that correct?
I had never heard of yum update, but after investigation it does
sound tasty! ;)
USB and firewire can be part of the problem, I also understand that you were
running Red Hat Linux 9, which uses and older version of gPhoto2, you may
find that you camera is better supported under Fedora 2.
As for yum, its like schwet for Slackware or pkg-get for Solaris, it
automatically allows one to not only to install updates, but automatically
resolves dependencies when downloading and installing software.
Matty
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Re:Linux |
25 Jul 2004 07:16:16 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:55:29 -0700, Enkidu wrote:
Stoney,
I'd like to discuss Linux with someone who's
a distance ahead of me. If you are up for it,
please contact me via email. My reply-to works.
Oh my. If I was even a little 'up to speed' on
Linux I could be of help, but I'm not at that
point. 'Help' isn't something I'd be. :\
If you're looking for something to mess with
without making changes to your system, i.e.,
run off of CD, may I suggest Knoppix?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re:Linux |
25 Jul 2004 07:39:34 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.07.26.00.16.14.739631@localhost.localdomain>,
stoney@localhost.localdomain says...
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:55:29 -0700, Enkidu wrote:
Stoney,
I'd like to discuss Linux with someone who's
a distance ahead of me. If you are up for it,
please contact me via email. My reply-to works.
Oh my. If I was even a little 'up to speed' on
Linux I could be of help, but I'm not at that
point. 'Help' isn't something I'd be. :\
If you're looking for something to mess with
without making changes to your system, i.e.,
run off of CD, may I suggest Knoppix?
I've tried it, but it's SO limited in what can be done. If I'm every
going to move to Linux, I think I've got to really move to a full
working version.
I'll have to stick with windows for a few things, and my wife is not at
all interested in moving off windows on her machine, but I think it's
time to jump in.
--
Enkidu
"Go forth, and be excellent to each other"
- Bill & Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
25 Jul 2004 08:01:53 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:39:34 -0700, Enkidu <zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com>
wrote:
In article <pan.2004.07.26.00.16.14.739631@localhost.localdomain>,
stoney@localhost.localdomain says...
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:55:29 -0700, Enkidu wrote:
Stoney,
I'd like to discuss Linux with someone who's
a distance ahead of me. If you are up for it,
please contact me via email. My reply-to works.
Oh my. If I was even a little 'up to speed' on
Linux I could be of help, but I'm not at that
point. 'Help' isn't something I'd be. :\
If you're looking for something to mess with
without making changes to your system, i.e.,
run off of CD, may I suggest Knoppix?
I've tried it, but it's SO limited in what can be done. If I'm every
going to move to Linux, I think I've got to really move to a full
working version.
I'll have to stick with windows for a few things, and my wife is not at
all interested in moving off windows on her machine, but I think it's
time to jump in.
What about the guy from SCO who is trying to license Linux?
I tried to install Debian, owwww, did that not work. What is the word
on Debian. I think all Gnu is good, Am I right or wrong?
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
26 Jul 2004 12:25:14 AM |
|
|
Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> writes:
What about the guy from SCO who is trying to license Linux?
From what I've seen, SCO doesn't have a valid case. It sounds
like yet another FUD campaign (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.)
Just ignore them and let IBM's laywers rake SCO over the
coals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
26 Jul 2004 07:08:24 AM |
|
|
On 26/7/04 3:25 PM, in article m3fz7f5og6.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net, "No One"
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> writes:
What about the guy from SCO who is trying to license Linux?
From what I've seen, SCO doesn't have a valid case. It sounds
like yet another FUD campaign (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.)
Just ignore them and let IBM's laywers rake SCO over the
coals.
Agreed, and with that being said, SCO is down to their last couple of
million, its just a matter of time before they close up shop, and cut their
loses.
Matty
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Linux |
27 Jul 2004 11:27:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 21:01:53 -0400 in episode
<8tl8g0lhorusa36jtfkaf2lai6oep63mfe@4ax.com> we saw our hero Eris
<vithant01@comcast.net>:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:39:34 -0700, Enkidu <zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com>
wrote:
In article <pan.2004.07.26.00.16.14.739631@localhost.localdomain>,
stoney@localhost.localdomain says...
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:55:29 -0700, Enkidu wrote:
Stoney,
I'd like to discuss Linux with someone who's a distance ahead of me.
If you are up for it, please contact me via email. My reply-to
works.
Oh my. If I was even a little 'up to speed' on Linux I could be of
help, but I'm not at that point. 'Help' isn't something I'd be. :\
If you're looking for something to mess with without making changes to
your system, i.e., run off of CD, may I suggest Knoppix?
I've tried it, but it's SO limited in what can be done. If I'm every
going to move to Linux, I think I've got to really move to a full working
version.
I'll have to stick with windows for a few things, and my wife is not at
all interested in moving off windows on her machine, but I think it's
time to jump in.
What about the guy from SCO who is trying to license Linux?
SCO? Those idiots? Ignore them.
I tried to install Debian, owwww, did that not work. What is the word on
Debian. I think all Gnu is good, Am I right or wrong?
Debian is very stable and well regarded but it's also not a "user
friendly" distribution. It's not one I'd recommend to anybody who's just
starting out...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Re:Linux |
28 Jul 2004 12:00:02 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:39:34 -0700, Enkidu wrote:
In article <pan.2004.07.26.00.16.14.739631@localhost.localdomain>,
stoney@localhost.localdomain says...
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:55:29 -0700, Enkidu wrote:
Stoney,
I'd like to discuss Linux with someone who's
a distance ahead of me. If you are up for it,
please contact me via email. My reply-to works.
Oh my. If I was even a little 'up to speed' on
Linux I could be of help, but I'm not at that
point. 'Help' isn't something I'd be. :\
If you're looking for something to mess with
without making changes to your system, i.e.,
run off of CD, may I suggest Knoppix?
I've tried it, but it's SO limited in what can be done. If I'm every
going to move to Linux, I think I've got to really move to a full
working version.
Ah, I had thought this was to be your first exposure to Linux.
That was why I had mentioned Knoppix.
I'll have to stick with windows for a few things, and my wife is not at
all interested in moving off windows on her machine, but I think it's
time to jump in.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: Twelve Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society |
16 Jul 2004 06:50:15 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:18:17 +0100, Levy Oates
<levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 06:12:32 GMT, wrote:
You must have been hanging around funny people, John. They made you funny.
Watch out for those tall people, though.
I think he's being sarcastic. It's very difficult to parody fundies, since their
real beliefs always turn out to be even wilder still.
I think he knows he's being sarcastic. :)
--
Alex
atheist #2007
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Echo2Drs" |
|
| Title: Re: Twelve Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society |
16 Jul 2004 08:42:06 AM |
|
|
Marriage Will Ruin Society
LOL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jude & Sandra" |
|
| Title: Re: Twelve Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society |
16 Jul 2004 09:02:45 AM |
|
|
Excellent parody.
"John Watson" <JW@aol.com> wrote in message
news:C2JJc.87240$MB3.11743@attbi_s04...
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and
birth
control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children.
Infertile
couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs
more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents
only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears'
55-hour
just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at
all; just like women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce
is
illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the
majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the
rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours,
the
values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we
have
only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal
standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at
home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a
different name, are better because a "separate but equal" institution is
always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just
as
well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Twelve Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society |
17 Jul 2004 03:08:23 AM |
|
|
In article <C2JJc.87240$MB3.11743@attbi_s04>,
"John Watson" <JW@aol.com> wrote:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth
control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile
couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs
more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents
only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears' 55-hour
just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at
all; just like women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is
illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the
majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the
rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the
values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have
only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal
standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at
home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a
different name, are better because a "separate but equal" institution is
always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as
well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
Very Good! You should submit this to a newspaper, but given the
current political climate, I'm sure it wouldn't get published.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
The ability to change one's mind, ideas, and opinions when confronted with
new facts is the sign of the rational and intelligent. The inability to do
so is the hallmark of the dimwitted and the fanatic. This applies not only
to science and philosophy, but also to politics.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Twelve Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society |
16 Jul 2004 08:27:14 AM |
|
|
John Watson wrote:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth
control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile
couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs
more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents
only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears' 55-hour
just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at
all; just like women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is
illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the
majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the
rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the
values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have
only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal
standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at
home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a
different name, are better because a "separate but equal" institution is
always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as
well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
This one's a keeper :-) Thanks for the laugh.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Twelve Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society |
16 Jul 2004 07:16:14 AM |
|
|
John Watson wrote:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth
control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile
couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs
more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents
only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears' 55-hour
just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at
all; just like women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is
illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the
majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the
rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the
values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have
only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal
standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at
home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a
different name, are better because a "separate but equal" institution is
always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as
well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
If this is an original post (not plagerized), well
done!!!!!!!
Pangur
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
