«

Tony Houghton, ye slovenly humorous youth, a plague on your house, ye
complained:

> In article <tssdij$645$>,
> lid says...
>>
>> Hadron, ye worthless minute-jack, false of heart, light of ear,
>> bloody of hand, hog in sloth, fox in stealth, wolf in greediness,
>> dog in madness, lion in prey, ye dispensed:
>>>
>>> Once again you totally miss the point : it IS possible to change
>>> headers in an nntp post.
>>
>> The ****ing NNTP server does it, but the dense **** won't admit it.
>
> And what makes you think it's been doing that to Conor's posts when it
> obviously hasn't?

Where did I claim "it's been doing that to Conor's posts"?

<aside>
Illogical ****weed.

On Mon, 25 May 2009 22:09:01 GMT
"Hu Flung Dung" <> wrote:

> Tony Houghton, ye slovenly humorous youth, a plague on your house, ye
> complained:
>
> > In article <tssdij$645$>,
> > lid says...
> >>
> >> Hadron, ye worthless minute-jack, false of heart, light of ear,
> >> bloody of hand, hog in sloth, fox in stealth, wolf in greediness,
> >> dog in madness, lion in prey, ye dispensed:
> >>>
> >>> Once again you totally miss the point : it IS possible to change
> >>> headers in an nntp post.
> >>
> >> The ****ing NNTP server does it, but the dense **** won't admit it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> > And what makes you think it's been doing that to Conor's posts when it
> > obviously hasn't?
>
> Where did I claim "it's been doing that to Conor's posts"?

I've highlighted it for you, you forgot to snip it. Hadron quite clearly
meant to imply that the headers had been doctored and tried to claim he
only ever meant "it can happen" when he was proven wrong. You're his
"plus sot qui l'admire", which must make you very proud.

--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

"Tony Houghton" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:38:41 +0100
> "Simon Finnigan" <> wrote:
>
>> No, I`m asking you to clarify your claim that you are cleverer than
>> someone
>> else becuase you`ve been involved in developing NNTP software.
>> Presumably
>> anyone involved in developing software using HTTP must be more
>> intelligent
>> than you, since more people use that type of software? Or would you
>> agree
>> it is a fairly rediculous arguement to make?
>
> He thought he was being cleverer than me by going on about the behaviour
> of NNTP software, so it's quite reasonable to point out I know more
> about NNTP than an average Usenet user. Besides bringing up the
> possibility of an argument about whether I'm more intelligent than
> myself, your change of subject to HTTP is hardly less desperate and
> irrelevant than your argument about great physicists. You should stop
> digging and try reading Logic For Dummies or something.

You question my logic, despite being perfectly happy to base an assessment
of intelligence on a persons ability (or indeed desire) to develop NNTP
software. Interesting........

"Aardvark" <> wrote in message
news:SEjSl.202009$2...
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 13:21:35 +0100, Simon Finnigan wrote:
>
>> E.g. Linux zealots
>>>>>> claiming
>>>>>> that their OS is utterly secure,
>>>>>
>>>>> No-one with clue ever claimed that.
>>>>> Only the wintrolls use that argument as a form of attack. Linux is
>>>>> fort knox compared to the windows wet paper bag though.
>>>>
>>>> So Wintrolls use the arguement that Linux is invulnerable as a form of
>>>> attack? You sure about that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Where did he say that? Try READING what people write once in a while.
>>
>> I did, and that IS what he said.
>
> He made three statements:
>
> 1.No-one with clue ever claimed that their OS is utterly secure,
>
> First true statement.
>
> 2.Only the wintrolls use that argument as a form of attack. (Linux zealots
> claiming that their OS is utterly secure,)
>
> Second true statement (at least it is from my experience).

So to clarify, I said "Wintrolls use the arguement that Linux is
invulnerable as a form of attack?". He said "Only the wintrolls use that
argument as a form of attack", when discussing linux zealots claiming their
OS is utterly secure. Is it any clearer to you now that I`ve put both posts
in the same paragraph?

Simon Finnigan wrote:
> "Mike Tomlinson" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> In article <>, Simon Finnigan
>> <> writes
>>
>>> Really, nobody cares about Linux zealots with nothing productive to
>>> say. If
>>> you`re happy with an OS that hardly anyone else uses, then that`s fine.
>>
>> I don't see it quite like that. An OS is a tool to get a job done. If
>> one picks the correct tool for the job, there's no need for any fanboi-
>> ism or mindless advocacy.
>
> it is strange that people who get hung up on different OS`s al seem to
> have the same ideas about their product of choice. E.g. Linux zealots
> claiming that their OS is utterly secure, despite it having large
> numbers of security holes. Vista does everything I want a machine to
> do, is easier to support than any of the alternatives, hence its an easy
> choice.
>
>> I use Linux at work and Windows at home. Each has its own strengths and
>> weaknesses. I tend to be anti-M$ because of their shonky marketing and
>> restrictive business practices, not because of their products. *
>
> I`ve always found Linux to be slower on the same hardware,


You've never compared NTFS on Windows to ext3 on Linux. Windows file
access is ridiculously slow.


> and a pain to
> do anything with.

In article <pIQSl.43864$>, Matt says...

> You've never compared NTFS on Windows to ext3 on Linux. Windows file
> access is ridiculously slow.
>
At least it doesn't kill hard drives...




--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Conor <> wrote:
> In article <pIQSl.43864$>, Matt says...
>
>> You've never compared NTFS on Windows to ext3 on Linux. Windows file
>> access is ridiculously slow.
>>
> At least it doesn't kill hard drives...

The implication being?
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:48:34 +0100
Conor <> wrote:

> In article <pIQSl.43864$>, Matt says...
>
> > You've never compared NTFS on Windows to ext3 on Linux. Windows file
> > access is ridiculously slow.
> >
> At least it doesn't kill hard drives...

Are you saying ext3 does? Where did you hear that, I haven't?

--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

bcoombes wrote:

> Tony Houghton wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:48:34 +0100
>> Conor <> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <pIQSl.43864$>, Matt says...
>>>
>>>> You've never compared NTFS on Windows to ext3 on Linux. Windows file
>>>> access is ridiculously slow.
>>>>
>>> At least it doesn't kill hard drives...
>>
>> Are you saying ext3 does? Where did you hear that, I haven't?
>>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...ts-lappy-hard-
drive

Typical wintroll idiocy and dishonesty noted

/quote
The problem appears to be the default values set by the hard drive makers.
Voleware ignores the default values and just runs its own, however it
seems that Ubuntu made the grave mistake of doing what the hard drive
manufacturers told them.
/unquote

So the disks were at fault, and this is suddenly a "problem" of linux?

--
Any idiot can run XP. And usually does.

In article <d2dte6->, Andrew Halliwell says...
>
> Conor <> wrote:
> > In article <pIQSl.43864$>, Matt says...
> >
> >> You've never compared NTFS on Windows to ext3 on Linux. Windows file
> >> access is ridiculously slow.
> >>
> > At least it doesn't kill hard drives...
>
> The implication being?

A few milliseconds difference is far better than having a fried drive.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams